PT158 S3 Q18 ExplanationClassicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Role2% picked this

   It is the main conclusion drawn in

   The main conclusion of the argument is that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect — the first sentence of the passage. The Plato's Academy statement is not the main conclusion; it is part of the supporting reasoning. It serves as an example illustrating why mastery of dead languages cannot match that of living ones. On Role of Statement questions, the main conclusion is the claim that everything else supports. Here, the imperfect-mastery claim is what the Plato's Academy example ultimately helps to prove. The example provides support; the conclusion receives it.

   2%
2. B

   Correct52% picked this

   It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion

   Why this is right

   The Plato's Academy statement serves as a concrete example that highlights the critical contrast between modern and ancient language learning. The argument's reasoning depends on a contrast: modern language students can achieve near-perfect mastery through immersion in a country where the language is spoken, but no comparable immersion is possible for dead languages. The statement that you cannot visit Plato's Academy crystallizes this contrast through a specific, memorable image. It is not an independent premise that directly proves the conclusion on its own; rather, it illustrates by example the broader point about the impossibility of ancient-language immersion, and the conclusion (imperfect mastery) is drawn from this contrast. "Points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn" precisely captures this structural role.

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   52%
3. C

   Contradicted9% picked this

   It is a mere rhetorical flourish having no logical relation to

   The Plato's Academy statement is far from a mere rhetorical flourish with no logical relation to the conclusion. It plays a specific structural role: it illustrates the impossibility of immersion in dead languages, which is the core of the argument's reasoning. Without this contrast between what modern-language students can do and what ancient-language students cannot, the conclusion about imperfect mastery would have no support. The statement is logically integral to the argument — it makes the abstract reasoning concrete and provides the evidential basis for the conclusion. Dismissing it as decoration ignores its essential function in the argument's logical structure.

   9%
4. D

   Too Strong30% picked this

   It is a premise that guarantees the truth of the

   The statement does not "guarantee" the truth of the conclusion. A premise that guarantees a conclusion would make the argument deductively valid on its own. But the Plato's Academy reference alone does not prove that mastery of ancient languages is imperfect — it requires the additional reasoning about immersion being the pathway to near-perfect mastery. The statement is one piece of the argument, not a logically sufficient condition for the conclusion. Furthermore, calling it a "premise" overstates its independence: it functions more as an illustrative example of a broader contrast than as a standalone premise. "Guarantees the truth" is far too strong a characterization of its role.

   30%
5. E

   Wrong Role8% picked this

   It is an ancillary conclusion drawn in

   An ancillary conclusion is a subsidiary claim that the argument establishes along the way to its main conclusion — an intermediate conclusion. The Plato's Academy statement is not something the argument is trying to prove. It is presented as an obvious fact that everyone would accept: of course you cannot travel back in time. The argument uses this fact as evidence; it does not derive it from other evidence. A conclusion (main or ancillary) is supported by other claims in the argument. This statement is not supported by anything — it supports other claims. That makes it part of the evidence, not a conclusion of any kind.

   8%