PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 8
Knowledge of an ancient language is essential for(48 more words not shown)
The argument is vulnerable to(8 more words not shown)
- AIt concludes that(13 more words not shown)
- BA statement of(12 more words not shown)
- CThe conclusion is(14 more words not shown)
- DThe judgment of(12 more words not shown)
- ESome of the(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A translation lets me read an ancient text without knowing its original language. That doesn't settle whether learning the language could still be necessary for my work.
The first point makes sense. If I can't read the language, the original words won't tell me much. A modern translation can remove that obstacle for a particular document. But the conclusion goes beyond that convenience: future ancient-history scholars supposedly no longer need to learn ancient languages at all.
What about other reasons to learn them? A scholar might need the original wording to investigate how people at the time understood an idea, rather than relying entirely on a translator's interpretation. We haven't proved that every scholar must do that. The point is that explaining how translations help with one task doesn't establish that no other research task requires language knowledge.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for that overreach. The argument removes a reason to learn an ancient language in certain circumstances and treats the need as eliminated across the career. An abstract answer will need to be translated back into those concrete claims.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The “something” is learning an ancient language. The conclusion says aspiring scholars no longer need to do it. But the evidence only shows why it isn't always necessary: they can read existing translations of many documents.
Notice another limit in the wording: most documents have been translated, not all. A scholar who needs an untranslated document could still need the ancient language, quite apart from our earlier concern about other research purposes. So we have both a practical possibility and the exact gap A describes. Not needing the skill for some work doesn't establish never needing it.
- B
The author doesn't dismiss a fact as merely someone's opinion. The author accepts facts about originals and translations, then draws too broad a conclusion from them. We should identify that overreach instead of assigning a different attitude toward the evidence.
- C
The conclusion goes further than the evidence; it doesn't simply repeat it. Most documents being translated and scholars never needing ancient languages are different claims. Repetition would give us no new step to evaluate. Here the problem is precisely the unsupported step from the limited evidence to the broader conclusion.
- D
No expert's judgment is offered as a reason to accept the conclusion. The passage discusses scholars, but discussing their careers isn't the same as citing them as authorities. We therefore have no expertise being applied outside its relevant field.
- E
The stated facts can all be true together. Reading an original can require knowing its language while reading a modern translation doesn't. Those claims concern different versions of the document, so they don't conflict. An unsupported conclusion isn't automatically evidence that the premises contradict each other.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.