Logical Reasoning

PT158 · S3 · Q18 Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek

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

Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.

Conclusion

Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.

Evidence

The best students of a modern language can immerse themselves in a country where that language is spoken in order to attain nearly perfect knowledge.

But you can't travel back in time (to ancient Greece) to spend a year at Plato's Academy (immersing yourself in the ancient Greek language).

Evaluate

Whenever we read Role and Main Conclusion arguments, we remind ourselves that 90% of the time the conclusion is: - the First Sentence or - some Rebuttal / Pivot idea

That helps us hear the first sentence as an Author Opinion, right out of the gate ("at best imperfect"). If she goes on to support that idea, we know it's the main conclusion.

She does indeed. The final two claims combine to show why our mastery of ancient Latin and Greek isn't the best: best requires immersion, and you can't do immersion with ancient Latin and Greek.

Goal

We're being asked about the 3rd claim, which was one of the two premises. So let's look for something like "Support, Evidence, Premise" for the conclusion in the 1st sentence.

18.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the classicist's argument by the claim that you cannot travel back in time to spend a year abroad at Plato's Academy?

  1. It is the main conclusion

    Wrong Role

    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% picked this

  2. Correct

    It points up by example

    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.

    53% picked this

  3. It is a mere rhetorical

    Contradicted

    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.

    8% picked this

  4. It is a premise that

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  5. It is an ancillary conclusion

    Wrong Role

    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% 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