Explanation
Warrington's statement addresses the argument made by Lopez regarding the university's commitment to liberal arts. We are tasked with figuring out in what way Warrington's argument addresses Lopez's.
A. Warrington does not provide additional support for Lopez's conclusion; rather, he introduces a differing viewpoint that questions the necessity of a classics department for the pursuit of liberal arts.
B. Warrington's argument does not critique Lopez's reasoning as an illicit appeal to tradition; it instead suggests that the commitment to liberal arts can be upheld without a dedicated classics department.
C. Warrington does not directly challenge the conclusion of Lopez's argument; he acknowledges the importance of classical studies but implies that the commitment to liberal arts can be maintained through other means.
D. Warrington does not appear to be responding to an objection within Lopez's argument but is rather offering a separate argument about how liberal arts commitment can be demonstrated.
E. Warrington is presenting a consideration that challenges the reasoning in Lopez's argument. By suggesting that other departments can carry out the study of classical works, he is undermining the assumption that a classics department is essential to the university's commitment to liberal arts.
Warrington does not directly challenge the factual basis but instead introduces a new element that suggests the conclusion — that the university is not committed to liberal arts — may not necessarily follow from the premise that the classics department was closed.