Classicist: Our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect. The best students of a modern language may so immerse themselves in a country where it is spoken as to attain nearly perfect knowledge; but
you cannot travel back in time to spend a year abroad at Plato's Academy.
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?
The classicist concludes that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is imperfect. The reason is that, unlike students of modern languages, students of ancient languages cannot immerse themselves in the original living environment of those languages.
The Plato’s Academy line illustrates that contrast: modern-language learners can go abroad, but ancient-language learners cannot go back to the
ancient world.
(A) It is the main conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is incorrect. The main conclusion is that our mastery of Latin and Ancient Greek is at best imperfect.
(B) It points up by example a contrast from which the conclusion is drawn.
This is correct. The statement gives an example showing the contrast between modern languages and ancient languages. Modern-language learners can immerse themselves in a living language community; ancient-language learners cannot.
(C) It is a mere rhetorical flourish having no logical relation to the argument's conclusion.
This is incorrect. The statement does have a logical role: it supports the conclusion by explaining why mastery of ancient languages is limited.
(D) It is a premise that guarantees the truth of the argument's conclusion.
This is too strong. The statement supports the conclusion, but it does not guarantee it by itself.
(E) It is an ancillary conclusion drawn in the argument.
This is incorrect. The statement is not a sub-conclusion. It is a supporting example.
Answer: (B)