PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 18
Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(28 more words not shown)
- AIt is the(6 more words not shown)
- BIt points up(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is a(9 more words not shown)
- EIt is an(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can spend a year surrounded by people using a modern language. You can't spend a year at Plato's Academy by traveling back in time.
That's a real difference in the learning opportunities the classicist describes. A student of a modern language can immerse themselves in a place where it is spoken in everyday life. The year at Plato's Academy would provide that kind of experience with Ancient Greek, but that opportunity isn't available to us.
The classicist uses this difference to support the opening claim: our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is imperfect. Does missing that route prove we can't reach mastery another way? Not automatically. The argument hasn't shown that immersion in the original community is the only possible route.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the role of the time-travel statement, so we don't need to settle that objection. The statement helps explain why the author thinks ancient languages differ from modern ones in how fully we can learn them. I'd identify it as support and then look for the answer that describes that support accurately.
Working the answers
- A
The main conclusion is the opening claim about imperfect mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek. The time-travel statement is offered to help explain that claim. It isn't the point the argument ultimately wants us to accept.
- BCorrect
“Points up” means highlights. The example of Plato's Academy highlights a contrast: modern-language students can immerse themselves in the relevant living community, while we can't enter the ancient community in that way.
The classicist draws the conclusion about imperfect mastery from that difference. B's wording is a little unusual, but each part fits: a particular example, a contrast, and a conclusion supported by the contrast.
- C
The line is vivid, but it isn't merely decorative. Remove the idea it expresses, and we lose the reason the author gives for treating ancient-language study differently from modern-language immersion. A memorable phrase can still perform a logical job.
- D
It is a premise, but “guarantees” goes too far. The fact that we can't visit an ancient community doesn't by itself rule out every other way of attaining full knowledge. We might question whether records or other study methods could suffice. The statement supports the conclusion without establishing it beyond doubt.
- E
An ancillary conclusion would be a secondary claim established by other reasoning in the passage. The classicist doesn't first argue that time travel to Plato's Academy is impossible. That fact is taken as a starting point and used to support the claim about language mastery.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.