Lopez: Our university is not committed to liberal arts, as evidenced by its decision to close the classics department...

shunhe on July 29, 2020

Hi @ruchitaj,

Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the argument first. Lopez is saying that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts, since it closed the classics department, and studying the classics is crucial to the liberal arts.

Warrington then rebuts by saying that sure, studying the classics is essential, but a classics department isn’t. Why? Because other departments study the classics anyway.

So now we’re asked for how Warrington’s argument proceeds; this is a method of reasoning question. So what is Warrington doing? Well, Warrington says sure, agreeing that studying the classics is essential. But then Warrington points out something that Lopez looked over: the fact that other departments also study the classics. So we should look for an answer choice that says something along these lines.

Taking a look at (E), that’s exactly what it does. Warrington presents a consideration (the fact that other departments study classical works) in order to undermine the reasoning in Lopez’s argument (that getting rid of the classics department means that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts).

(D), on the other hand, isn’t quite it. (D) tells us that Warrington responds to a possible objection to the reasoning in Lopez’s argument, in other words, this answer choice says that Warrington is defending Lopez’s argument! But that’s not what’s happening, Warrington is actually attacking the argument.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.