LSAT 158 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.

REASONING: Perfect understanding requires immersing oneself in a country where the language is spoken. However, you cannot travel back in time to Plato’s Academy.

ANALYSIS: The argument proceeds by saying how you get to be perfect at a language, and then showing that it is impossible to do so for Latin and Ancient Greek. The role of the Plato’s Academy portion is to show that the conclusion is likely true: it is difficult to perfectly master Latin and Ancient Greek because you can’t immerse yourself among native speakers.

___________

1. It is not the main conclusion. The conclusion is that our mastery is at best imperfect.
2. CORRECT. You can go to modern France to learn French. You can’t go to Ancient Greece to learn Ancient Greek.
3. This is not true. The claim is logically supportive of the conclusion.
4. The truth definitely isn’t guaranteed. The argument hasn’t totally excluded the possibility we could perfect our Latin or Ancient Greek some other way.
5. The claim is not an ancillary conclusion. There is no evidence to support it in the argument.

Recap: The question begins with “Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn more about LSAT Role questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.