Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S4 · Q8 Knowledge of an ancient language

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Knowledge of an ancient language is essential for reading original ancient documents.

Conclusion (Therefore)

Aspirants to careers as ancient-history scholars no longer need to take the time to learn ancient languages.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

Ancient-history scholars can read most ancient historical documents without learning ancient languages.

Evidence

You need to learn ancient languages in order to read original copies of ancient documents. But most historical documents have been translated into modern languages.

Evaluate

Since there are two conclusions here, we could potentially scrutinize both reasoning moves.

Given that ... most ancient docs have been translated into modern languages, Do we have to accept that ... ancient-history scholars can read them for their research without learning ancient languages?

Hmm, not necessarily. Who says that ancient-history scholars have access to these translations? Who says that the modern languages the ancient docs were translated into are a modern language spoken by most ancient-history scholars?

What about the 2nd move:

Given that .. ancient-history scholars can read translations of most ancient documents without having to learn an ancient language, Do we have to accept that ... people studying to be an ancient-history scholar don't need to learn ancient languages?

Not necessarily. What if ancient-history scholars often want to study one of those books that isn't translated. The fact that most are translated could still leave up to 49% of ancient documents that aren't translated.

Maybe ancient-history scholars need to know an ancient language not for the sake of reading original ancient documents, but for some other reason.

Goal

Look for an answer objecting to the Intermediate Conclusion (that since most of these ancient docs are translated, ancient-history scholars can read them) or one objecting to the Main Conclusion (that since they can read translations of most ancient docs, they have no need to learn an ancient language).

The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

Correct
It concludes that something is
Why this is right
Because this answer is phrased, concludes X on the grounds that Y we would start asking ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Does the conclusion say "something is never necessary"? Sure, it's saying that it's no longer ever necessary for ancient-history scholars to learn an ancient language. Does the evidence establish that "learning an ancient language is not always necessary"? Yes. It establishes that in the case of translated ancient docs, it is not necessary to learn an ancient language in order to read them for research. Almost always, if a Flaw answer describes a 2-part reasoning move and it matches the argument, it will be correct. So if we didn't really understand this answer but still knew we could match up the parts, we should pick it. Essentially, this answer is getting at our second objection: what if sometimes an ancient-history scholar needs to read one of those ancient history docs that hasn't been translated. In that case, won't they need to take the time to learn ancient languages?
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
A statement of fact is
Not Fact vs. Opinion
We can't really match this up with anything. It feels like the first two claims are presented as facts. The intermediate conclusion and main conclusion could be called opinions, since we know the author is maybe illicitly deriving them. But saying "the premises are facts and your conclusion is merely your opinion" would seemingly apply to every argument we ever read. There is a somewhat recurring flaw in the older tests in which an author treats someone's opinion as though it's a fact. That is definitely a dubious move. Treating a fact as if it's a matter of opinion would be like saying "Astronomers in the 16th century determined the world is round. A famous basketball player recently argued that the earth is flat. So, I guess we don't know who is right." In other words, an author would have to talk about something factual but then act like it might not be true (thus, treating it as opinion). Our author never treats either of his two factual premises as though they might not be true.
2% picked this
The conclusion is no more
Not Circular
This answer refers to one of the 10 famous flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or requires the conclusion to be true. This answer choice is almost never correct. None of the premises restate the conclusion (i.e. there's no premise that says "aspiring ancient-history scholars no longer need to learn ancient languages".
7% picked this
The judgment of experts is
Not Inappropriate Appeal
This is another of the top 10 famous flaws, Inappropriate Appeals, where the author's argument leans on an appeal to emotion or an appeal to a dubious expert. None of these premises are quoting the judgment of any purported expert.
1% picked this
Some of the evidence presented
Not Self-Contradiction
This is another of the top 10 famous flaws, Self-Contradiction, in which one thing the author says contradicts ("is inconsistent with") something else the author says. None of the author's claims here contradict each other.
9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free