Q8 - Lopez: Our university is not committed to liberal

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Describe (Procedure)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: A Classics department isn't essential to liberal arts, even though studying classical works is essential.
Evidence: Other departments engage in the study of classical works.

Answer Anticipation:
We could describe W's argument abstractly by saying, "Even though X is required for A, we don't need a special enterprise to do X. Other things we're already doing are accomplishing X."

But we should also try to describe it in relation to Lopez's argument:
He thinks that closing the classics department shows a lack of commitment to liberal arts.

W is saying, "having a classics department might be helpful in achieving a goal of liberal arts (studying classical works), but it's not NECESSARY to achieve that goal".

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) No, W is underming the reason offered for L's conclusion.

(B) Nothing W says relates to an accusation that L is leaning too hard on tradition.

(C) No, W is not actually going against L's conclusion. He's just undermining the support/assumption of L's argument that "closing a classics department constitutes a betrayal of your liberal arts commitment".

(D) W is mainly going against L. But this answer describes W defending L's argument against an objection. We want to hear that W actually RAISED an objection.

(E) YES. W presents the consideration that "having a classic dept isn't required in order to achive the liberal arts goal of studying classical works", which would undermine L's reasoning.

Takeaway/Pattern: As long as we got the gist that W was pushing back, we should be able to get rid of (A) and (D). And then "illicit appeal to tradition" in (B) should be too hard to match up. So we'll come down to (C) vs. (E), and they differ in terms of whether W is arguing that "Our university IS committed to liberal arts" or whether W is simply poking holes in the argument that L was trying to make.

#officialexplanation