Santayana recommends that we study history to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Conclusion (But)
We should not follow Santayana's advice to study history in order to avoid the mistakes of the past.
Intermediate Conclusion (For, Thus)
Studying history never enables anyone to avoid past mistakes.
Intermediate Conclusion
None of the crises we face now are the same as those our ancestors faced.
Evidence (since)
History consists of unique and unrepeatable accidents.
Evaluate
Whenever we do Main Conclusion / Role, we listen for upside down arguments (80% of these questions have the main conclusion appear earlier the supporting ideas). 65% of them have a Pivot / Rebuttal conclusion 25% of them have a First Sentence conclusion
So when the paragraph opens with an Attribution, we are already anticipating the Pivot / Rebuttal type conclusion, and then sure enough the 2nd sentence gives us that Pivot + Pushback.
That second sentence is clearly an Author Opinion, "we should not follow his advice" and clearly Supported. Everything after "For" is support. History is unrepeatable, so today's crises are new, so history cannot help us dodge old mistakes. Each of those claims supports the next, and the chain ends at the final sentence.
The final sentence, with its "Thus," looks like the main conclusion, and that is the trap. Ask what it is there for. Why does the author tell us that studying history never lets anyone avoid past mistakes? To justify rejecting Santayana's advice. The last sentence supports the second sentence, not the other way around.
Goal
Look for a restatement of "we should not follow his advice," which means we should not study history to avoid making mistakes of the past.