PrepTest 158

As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, the statement-in-question is a premise. The first sentence is the main conclusion of this argument.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
A classicist asserts that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek isn't perfect. You can master a contemporary language just by visiting a country where the language is spoken. We can't travel back in time to Plato's Academy, however.

Strategy Overview:

1. Identify the conclusion
2. Identify the premies
3. Determine the role played by the statement from the question stem.
   1. For example …
      1. Premise
      2. Main conclusion
      3. Subsidiary conclusion
4. Find the answer choice that correctly expresses the role

Answer Anticipation:
On Argument Structure questions, well-versed test-takers will thoroughly deconstruct and understand the entire argument in the passage before addressing the statement from the question stem. Even though our job is to understand the role of the statement-in-question, the benefits of understanding the whole argument are twofold. First, trying to figure out the function of the statement-in-question too early and without considering the entire argument can sometimes bias us and lead to an incorrect decision. Second, many answer choices will require us to know the roles of multiple propositions. (For instance, if the statement-in-question is a subsidiary conclusion, we'll probably also need to know which premise supports the statement-in-question and which conclusion the subsidiary conclusion supports.)

So let's break down the classicist's entire argument, starting with the conclusion. The conclusion is the first sentence. Although it doesn't have any conclusory indicator words, it has authorial tone ("at best imperfect"). In addition, the following sentence provides us an explanation of why knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek is imperfect. That means the second sentence functions as a premise, making the first sentence a conclusion. (If you're ever unsure if a statement is a conclusion, simply ask, "Why?" after reading it. If another part of the passage provides you the answer, that statement is a conclusion.)

The statement-in-question is the last part of the second sentence. We've already noted that it provides support to the first sentence, making it a premise. Further, it's not supported by any other statement — there's not another premise explaining why we can't travel back in time to ancient Athens — so it's not a subsidiary conclusion.

But the correct answer may get into how exactly this statement-in-question supports the conclusion, so we can sharpen our anticipated answer. The statement-in-question stands in contrast to the first part of that sentence. In the first part, we learn how to master a language: travel to a country where the language is spoken. The second part shows that we can't do that with antiquated languages like Latin and Ancient Greek, supporting the conclusion. The more precise anticipation, then, is that the statement-in-question draws a contrast to modern languages to support the argument's conclusion about antiquated languages.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This is among the most confusingly worded answer choices we've seen on an Argument Structure question. As far as we can tell, "point up" is a Britishism meaning "emphasize." So this answer choice can be roughly translated to, "It is an example intended to emphasize a contrast that supports the conclusion."

However, an adaptable test-taker could get to this answer choice without knowing this definition of "point up." As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, we know the statement-in-question draws a contrast with how we master modern language. This contrast is used to support the conclusion. So the phrase "a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn" is an apt description of the statement-in-question. Further, an adaptable test-taker could see how the reference to "Plato's Academy" could accurately be called an "example." To illustrate the same point, the author could have used several other places where Latin or Ancient Greek was spoken — the Roman Colosseum, Virgil's study, Mycenae. The author just chose Plato's Academy as one example. So, even with the strange phrasing, it's possible to determine that this accurately expresses the role played by the statement-in-question.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT will occasionally throw in strange wording in the correct answer — as it did on (B) here. If we use a process of elimination and pay special attention to the words we can parse in the answer choice (like "contrast from which the conclusion is drawn" in (B)), we can get select the right answer even when the wording is complicated.

As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, the statement-in-question is a premise. The contrast it draws with how we master contemporary languages helps support the main conclusion. So it is inaccurate to say that the statement-in-question has "no logical relation to the argument's conclusion."

As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, the statement-in-question is a premise. However, this premise does not "guarantee[] the truth of the argument's conclusion." This argument is flawed, so the conclusion is far from guaranteed. The statement-in-question shows why we can't master ancient languages in the same way we master modern language. But this doesn't guarantee the conclusion's assertion that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is imperfect, as there could be other ways to gain mastery over those ancient languages.

This is a rare appearance of the term "ancillary conclusion" on the LSAT. In the context of law or business, the word ancillary means subordinate, supplemental, or subsidiary. So an "ancillary conclusion" is synonymous with "subsidiary conclusion" or "intermediate conclusion."

You wouldn't need to know that to eliminate this answer choice, however. The statement-in-question is not supported by anything — there's no study cited to disprove the existence of time machines or anything like that — so it cannot be a conclusion at all.