Only poetry cannot be translated well, and therefore it is poets who preserve languages, for we would not bother to learn a language if we could get everything written in it from translation.
Facts
~poetry → can be translated well
~poets → ~preserve language
translation provided all → ~learn language
~language written in → can't appreciate poem
Poetry motivates us to learn a new language, since poetry sometimes doesn't translate well, and we can only witness the beauty of a poem in its native language.
Evaluate / Goal
It's hard to tell from the question stem whether this is a "soft" Must Be False question, or a Most Supported EXCEPT question.
If the correct answer is trying to act like a Must Be False, it will probably contradict a conditional. The form of contradicting an inference is "trigger is true, outcome isn't".
So potential answers could sound like - Not a poem, but can't be translated well - Not a poet, but preserves language - Translation provides everything we need, but we still learn a language - read a translation of a poem but do still witness all its beauty
If the four answers we can eliminate are supportable inferences, they will reinforce what we know from the passage. It didn't seem like any of the rules chained together and allowed for inferences by combining facts.