PT91.S2.Q18: What is the conclusion?

Comments

• nnnnnnzzzz Member

  November 2021 177 karma

  Yes the first sentence is the conclusion. And yes it is the contrast between ancient and modern languages. I got this question wrong too (+_+') \
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 2249 karma

  @nnnnnnzzzz said:
  Yes the first sentence is the conclusion. And yes it is the contrast between ancient and modern languages. I got this question wrong too (+_+') \

  Why isn’t it E?
• nnnnnnzzzz Member

  November 2021 177 karma

  @Ashley2018 said:

  @nnnnnnzzzz said:
  Yes the first sentence is the conclusion. And yes it is the contrast between ancient and modern languages. I got this question wrong too (+_+') \

  Why isn’t it E?

  Because there is no premise supporting it to be a sub conclusion.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 2249 karma

  Oh not E I mean D
• nnnnnnzzzz Member

  November 2021 177 karma

  @Ashley2018 said:
  Oh not E I mean D

  Oh that's what I chose as well.

  The premise that can guarantee the truth of the conclusion in this case should include this: if you can't travel back in time where the language was spoken, your mastery of that language can't be perfect.

  A guarantee of the truth of the conclusion is deductive reasoning.

  Just noticed that this argument has a loophole because it's missing the above. This question can be a sufficient/necessary assumption one too.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  Wait, what? What gap are you talking about?
• maxjab00 Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 35 karma

  The conclusion is the first sentence, saying that our understanding of Greek and Latin is imperfect.

  A. No, the comment about travelling back in time is not the conclusion
  B. The time travel comment contrasts with the previous comment about modern students being fully immersed. So it does contrast the opposing point to help support the conclusion.
  C. I chose this answer and got it wrong. I suppose the language is too strong when it says it has no logical connection, because I suppose that it has some connection.
  D. The language is too strong. Just because we can't travel back in time does not mean that we can't understand Greek and Latin. That idea may be true, that time travel comment does not guarantee it.
  E. There no ancillary conclusions, only the main conclusion.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 edited November 2021 2249 karma

  @maxjab00 said:
  The conclusion is the first sentence, saying that our understanding of Greek and Latin is imperfect.

  A. No, the comment about travelling back in time is not the conclusion
  B. The time travel comment contrasts with the previous comment about modern students being fully immersed. So it does contrast the opposing point to help support the conclusion.
  C. I chose this answer and got it wrong. I suppose the language is too strong when it says it has no logical connection, because I suppose that it has some connection.
  D. The language is too strong. Just because we can't travel back in time does not mean that we can't understand Greek and Latin. That idea may be true, that time travel comment does not guarantee it.
  E. There no ancillary conclusions, only the main conclusion.

  Well, it didn't say we couldn't understand Greek and Latin at all, only that our understanding was imperfect. So our inability to go back to Plato's academy DOESN'T guarantee that our understanding is imperfect?
• 1 Like

  maxjab00 Member

  November 2021 35 karma

  @Ashley2018 said:

  Well, it didn't say we couldn't understand Greek and Latin at all, only that our understanding was imperfect. So our inability to go back to Plato's academy DOESN'T guarantee that our understanding is imperfect?

  Not from the info alone. It's a very strong premise, but it's not a premise that can guarantee anything on its own. Very rarely does a single premise guarantee anything without other premises. You would need another premise saying something, "unless you converse with the ancients, you will never have perfect understanding." I think the question is tricking us into making this assumption. However, since the question does not say this, we have to pretend that does not exist.

  The question is saying:

  • A
  • Therefore B

  The problem is that A is very intuitively linked to B. But, the argument never cements the relationship between by explicitly saying that A -> B. If the argument does not express it, you can't assume it.
• Vectorthesupercutecat Member

  November 2021 42 karma

  D is wrong because it does not guarantees the truth. The premise says the best students of a modern language MAY so immerse themselves.
• Ashley2018-1 Alum Member

  November 2021 2249 karma

  @Vectorthesupercutecat said:
  D is wrong because it does not guarantees the truth. The premise says the best students of a modern language MAY so immerse themselves.

  The question stem is referring to the last sentence though, the part about plato’s academy, not the sentence about modern students .
• Vectorthesupercutecat Member

  November 2021 42 karma

  That's the exactly the premise to get to the conclusion.
  In order to guarantees the truth, instead of using MAY, it needs to be modified as:
  THE ONLY way students can attain perfect knowledge is to immerse themselves in a country where it is spoken.
  MAY opens up the possibilities that even if you can't get perfect by this method, there are other methods you can achieve the same goal.