by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:30 pm
Interesting that you ended up at answer choice (E). I think the majority of the time, when students miss this question, they're more likely to be torn between answer choices (A) and (B).
Scholars who analyze works written in Latin are either language specialists (and can handle the Latin, but not some of the more complicated works in law, theology, or science) or are intellectual historians (and can handle the law, theology, or science, but not the Latin language). We can ascertain this from lines 17-20 and also lines 28-33.
The reason why answer choice (E) is incorrect is that we cannot be sure that the writers who analyze the works of Marlowe, Shakespeare, and Sidney are the same ones who lack skills in Latin. Another issue with it is that it blurs the lines between an understanding of Latin and an historical knowledge of Latin.
(A) would have been correct had it not said that they lack both, but rather one or the other. We know that overspecialization is what has caused the issue addressed by the author - which implies that these scholars have skills, just not the combination of skills required for the task.
(B) is exactly the point of the passage. Because of overspecialization, while these scholars can either read the Latin or understand the complex information of law, theology, or science, most scholars lack the combination that would allow for analysis of law, theology, and science in Latin.
(C) is not true. These scholars have the language training needed, but not the specialized knowledge of more complicated information.
(D) is unsupported by the passage. While the second part of this answer choice might be true, the first part is not supported. The author sees a deficit in the study of these works.
(E) is unsupported. It's not a lack of historical knowledge of Latin, but a combination of proficiency in Latin along with the specialized knowledge to get by in the fields of law, theology, and science.
Does that answer your question?