LSAT 102 – Section 4 – Question 08

LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 08

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:01

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S4 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Quantifier +Quant
A
85%
166
B
1%
154
C
3%
158
D
1%
153
E
11%
164
120
135
154
 +Easier 146.127 +SubsectionMedium

Knowledge of an ancient language is essential for reading original ancient documents. Most ancient historical documents, however, have been translated into modern languages, so scholars of ancient history can read them for their research without learning ancient languages. Therefore, aspirants to careers as ancient-history scholars no longer need to take the time to learn ancient languages.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that aspiring ancient-history scholars no longer need to learn ancient languages, even though ancient languages are necessary to read original ancient documents. This is because most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages, making them readable even by people who don’t know an ancient language.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a general conclusion based only on what is most usually the case. The conclusion that ancient-history scholars don’t need to learn ancient languages is broad and absolute. However, even though “most” ancient documents have been translated, some may still require an ancient language. It’s also possible that reading a document in its original language could be valuable even if a translation is available.

A
It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
The author concludes that it is never necessary for ancient-history scholars to know ancient languages, on the grounds that “most” ancient documents have been translated. However, it’s still possible that ancient languages are necessary to read some untranslated documents.
B
A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a statement of opinion.
The author doesn’t treat any factual statements as though they are just opinions.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provided as support of that conclusion.
The author’s conclusion (that ancient-history scholars don’t need to know ancient languages) is different from the supporting evidence (that most ancient documents have been translated).
D
The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant.
The author doesn’t bring up the judgment of experts.
E
Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided.
The author doesn’t use inconsistent supporting evidence. The only point of support is that most ancient documents have been translated, which isn’t inconsistent with anything else stated.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply