#18 - Historian: Those who claim that Shakespeare did not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lday4]

Can you explain why D is a better choice than B? Is it because B is too generic in that the historian doesn't assert an issue with "anyone," as phrased in the answer choice, just these particular snobs?

Thanks!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi lday,

The problem is with the specific phrasing of B; by definition, someone who is motivated purely by snobbery cannot be motivated by anything else. It is sort of circular logic, and a sort of unfairly tempting answer choice because of that, but the trick is identifying that this could not be a flaw in the argument because it makes no sense. The language of D, on the other hand, is not self-contradictory, and captures the same idea as B without being logically flawed.

[al_godnessmary]

To follow on with that idea, is A not as good as D because it doesn't specify as directly as D does that there could be evidence (A just sort of suggests that it could still be true, implying there might be evidence to support the claim)?

[Clay Cooper]

Hi al_godnessmary,

Thanks for your question.

Answer choice A is wrong because our author does not say that these people (the alleged snobs) are wrong; he doesn't claim that Shakespeare actually wrote these plays. All he says is that they are motivated by snobbery. It is possible that he thinks they are nonetheless right. It doesn't seem likely, but he hasn't said otherwise.

[mN2mmvf]

I ultimately chose (D) for this, but I was really torn over the phrase "fails to exclude." To me, it seems like a flaw in the argument is that it *excludes* (not fails to exclude) the possibility that there may be legitimate evidence by not mentioning that possibility. If it had mentioned that possibility, then the flaw wouldn't exist.

The spirit in which I'm evaluating the argument is the same either way -- maybe the people who make these claims are doing it because of something other than snobbery -- but I got caught up in the wording of that phrase. If the answer choice had read simply "excludes the possibility that there might be legitimate evidence motivating those who reject Shakespeare's authorship", would it still be the right answer?

[AthenaDalton]

Hi mN2,

If the answer choice just stated that the author "excluded the possibility of motivations other than snobbery" it would still be on point, but "failure to exclude" is the best phrasing. You could think of "failing to exclude the possibility" as a way of saying the author "failed to rule out the possibility" or "neglected to address the possibility."

In the stimulus, the author just neglected to mention alternate motivations as a possibility altogether, so saying that she "failed to exclude the possibility" is more accurate than saying that she "excluded the possibility." The author could have excluded the possibility by stating outright that snobbery is the only motivation that drives these historians.

I hope this helps clarify things for you. Good luck studying!

[Paola]

Why would it be B instead of A? I see that the main issue with the argument is that it is attacking those who claim that Shakespeare did not write the plays based off of their character/motivations rather than the argument at it's base, but it seems to me that both A and B state this flaw. What is the main difference between these two answer choices that makes B correct and A incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

Neither A nor B is correct here, Paola! The correct answer is D, which addresses the possibility that something other than snobbery could be motivating the people who doubt Shakespeare's authenticity.

Answer A is incorrect because the author is not claiming that those people are wrong, but only discussing their motives. They might be right, but that's beside the point.

Answer B is incorrect because it takes for granted the very thing the author is trying to prove, that those people are motivated solely by snobbery, and also because it is internally inconsistent in that it actually must be true that if you are motivated purely by one thing then you cannot also be motivated by something else. That's what "purely" means!

I hope that helps!

[Khodi7531]

So I was stuck between A, B and D. They all sounded like they'd weaken and I chose A.


Now I get why A and B are both incorrect...but for future reference, can I get rid of answer choices, on questions asking me to weaken an argument, that start with the prefixes that address how author assumed/ didn't assume something? Like "presumes, w/o providing" , "takes for granted" ... etc?


D is "fails to exclude the possibility" which is going after weakening it and not what the author may or may not assume.


To answer my own question, I feel like there are times where i've chosen a correct answer off a question that's asking me to weaken an argument, that gets at an assumption with these prefixes.

Thoughts?