GittinGud
IMO B can also be reasonably inferred. Experts please comment.
Some authors have challenged the common perception of the Italian Renaissance as a time of creativity and positive change. For example, the Dutch historian
Johan Huizinga argued that the Renaissance caused the death of the Latin language due to its insistence on using the classical form of Latin. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage above that
A. Latin was still a living language during the Renaissance. -->
if someone says something lead to the death of something , no matter if it is true or false that thing must have been alive before it was killed . the guy says renaissance killed latin , so latin must have been alive during renaissanceB. The death of the Latin language was a negative effect of the Renaissance.-->
this is based on a historian's claim not the authors claim ,in such cases it could always be true that the person saying the statement (unless its the author) may be wrong C. The classical form of Latin was preferred during the Renaissance. --->
it says " insisted" . classical latin may not be the preferred if it had to be insisted D. Other forms of Latin had been corrupted by the time of the Renaissance. ---->
no evidanceE. Classical Latin is a lesser form of Latin than that spoken during the Renaissance -->
no evidance