Knowledge of an ancient language

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct81% picked this

   It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it 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.

   81%
2. B

   Not Fact vs. Opinion2% picked this

   A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a

   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%
3. C

   Not Circular7% picked this

   The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provided as support

   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%
4. D

   Not Inappropriate Appeal1% picked this

   The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their

   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%
5. E

   Not Self-Contradiction9% picked this

   Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with

   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%