IMO B.

Bit confused between A and B. But eliminated A becaused it cannot be guaged whether Latin was still living during Renaissance. It may have lived only the frst half of the Renaissance but the effect of it is felt even after.

kvcpk wrote: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.
B. The death of the Latin language was a negative effect of the Renaissance.
C. The classical form of Latin was preferred during the Renaissance.
D. Other forms of Latin had been corrupted by the time of the Renaissance.
E. Classical Latin is a lesser form of Latin than that spoken during the Renaissance.

IT is A.

No info of the effect of the death of Latin was given.
Only we know that Latin was alive by Renaissance and that it was lead to death.

FightWithGMAT wrote:

kvcpk wrote: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.
B. The death of the Latin language was a negative effect of the Renaissance.
C. The classical form of Latin was preferred during the Renaissance.
D. Other forms of Latin had been corrupted by the time of the Renaissance.
E. Classical Latin is a lesser form of Latin than that spoken during the Renaissance.

IT is A.

No info of the effect of the death of Latin was given.
Only we know that Latin was alive by Renaissance and that it was lead to death.

But the option B is talking about the effect of Renaissance . It is NOT talking about the effect of death.
Let me know what do you think.

kvcpk wrote: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.
B. The death of the Latin language was a negative effect of the Renaissance.
C. The classical form of Latin was preferred during the Renaissance.
D. Other forms of Latin had been corrupted by the time of the Renaissance.
E. Classical Latin is a lesser form of Latin than that spoken during the Renaissance.

One more for B.

I am for B too. What is the OA?

OA A

"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."

Based on the above premise, How can Latin still be a living lanuage during R? Or does A mean at some time during R, but not the entire R? Confused.

I was choosing between A, B, and E. Here is how I narrowed down my answer choice to A:

E - In the example, it is implied that the use of Classical Latin contributed to the death of the latin language as a whole. However, to say that Classical Latin is a lesser form of Latin can definitely be disputed. That is an opinion and does not have to be true.

B - In the argument, the author uses this example to imply that the Renaissance did not always foster creativity and/or positive change. He does not necessarily imply that the death of the Latin language was bad or a negative effect of the Renaissance. Naturally, Latin as a language was properly evolving during that time and since the Renaissance period insisted on the classical form of Latin, the period actually contributed to less creativity. Also, I ruled this answer choice out because "the death of the latin language was a negative effect" really came off as an opinion to me. It was too strong. Must be true questions are less about opinions and more about facts within the stimulus.

A - This must be true because if the language did not exist during the Renaissance, then this example would not hold true.

though I went for A, I am not able to reason why C cannot be inferred ...

from the stimulus
"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"

There are 2 things which can be inferred
1. Latin was still a living language till Renaissance which is option A
2. insistence on using the classical form of Latin which is option C

debmalya_dutta wrote:though I went for A, I am not able to reason why C cannot be inferred ...

from the stimulus
"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"

There are 2 things which can be inferred
1. Latin was still a living language till Renaissance which is option A
2. insistence on using the classical form of Latin which is option C

I think in this context, the example is actually implying that the use of the classical form caused the Latin language to die. "Insisted" does not equal "prefer". Insist is actually a relatively strong word which probably supports that the classical form was less preferred...

I see what you mean ......
But "insistence on using the classical form of Latin " would mean " preference on using the classical form of Latin "
Isn't it ?

I am probably flogging dead horse

ssp wrote:

debmalya_dutta wrote:though I went for A, I am not able to reason why C cannot be inferred ...

from the stimulus
"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"

There are 2 things which can be inferred
1. Latin was still a living language till Renaissance which is option A
2. insistence on using the classical form of Latin which is option C

I think in this context, the example is actually implying that the use of the classical form caused the Latin language to die. "Insisted" does not equal "prefer". Insist is actually a relatively strong word which probably supports that the classical form was less preferred...

@debmalya

I think it is helpful to understand the meaning or definition of each word. This might help:

in·sist/inˈsist/Verb
1. Demand something forcefully, not accepting refusal.
2. Demand forcefully to have or do something: "she insisted on answers"; "boots he insisted on wearing".

pre·fer/priˈfər/Verb
1. Like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose: "I prefer Venice to Rome".

"The Renaissance" demanded that the classical form be used. Since it did not allow a choice between using the classical form or the non-classical form --> no preference was implied

thanks mate

ssp wrote:@debmalya

I think it is helpful to understand the meaning or definition of each word. This might help:

in·sist/inˈsist/Verb
1. Demand something forcefully, not accepting refusal.
2. Demand forcefully to have or do something: "she insisted on answers"; "boots he insisted on wearing".

pre·fer/priˈfər/Verb
1. Like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose: "I prefer Venice to Rome".

"The Renaissance" demanded that the classical form be used. Since it did not allow a choice between using the classical form or the non-classical form --> no preference was implied

It looks like an assumption problem rather than inference problem.