Lopez: Our university is not committed to liberal arts, as evidenced by its decision to close the classics department. ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████
███████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ █ ████████ ██████████ ██████ █████ █████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████
Lopez concludes that our university is not committed to liberal arts. He bases this on the fact that the university closed the classics department. To Lopez, studying classics is necessary for studying liberal arts.
Warrington agrees that studying classics is necessary for liberal arts, but points out that other departments besides the classics department involve studying classics. (The implication is that Lopez’s argument isn’t convincing, because the closing of the classics department does not show that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts.)
Warrington points out that an assumption Lopez made (that the classics department is the only department that studies classics) is wrong.
Warrington's argument proceeds by
offering additional reasons ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████
claiming that the █████████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████
mounting a direct █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████
responding to a ████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████
presenting a consideration ██ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████████