Q2 - Those who support the continued

[b91302310]

Could anyone explain why (C) is wrong? What if in eighteenth century, fine paper and good bindings could have been reached by people of ordinary means? Because the last sentence is like a current standard.

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

You are absolutely right that fine paper and good bindings could have been "standard" back then --

Two keys to knowing (C) is incorrect --

(1) We're not told that fine paper and good bindings is a 20th century standard either, therefore, we don't know for sure that that is what the author is incorrectly doing.

(2) Notice that (C) addresses a potential issue in the premise, but not necessarily an issue that directly impacts the conclusion. Remember that the flaw you are looking for is ALWAYS a flaw that relates to how the evidence is used to prove the conclusion.

Hope that helps!

[Mab6q]

He is actually trying to show that the distinction made by Yolanda is inaccurate , so why would it be a flaw to not maintain that distinction . Hope that answers your question.

[cverdugo]

Hello everybody, this is my first post on here!

For some reason I was really confused by the argument, so I had trouble finding the flaw. I initially picked C but upon review I can see how E is the correct answer, I want to start writing down all of the questions I missed as well as the ones I have trouble with in hopes that in will stick. Here it goes!

Counterpremise: Those who support the continued reading and performance of Shakespeare's plays maintain in England appreciation for his work has always extended beyond elite and ever since Shake's own time his plays have been known and loved by comparatively uneducated people

P: Skepticism comes from examining early 18th century editions of plays

C: These books with their fine paper and good binding, must have been far beyond the reach of ordinary people

Now that I broke it up the flaws seems a little clearer. It seems like the author is comparing being able to read to knowing about something. Obviously the huge hole is that a play is watched not read, so even if the books were unavailable or written in Chinese, when performed people could have an appreciation/know them. This is exactly what E is getting at.

B the answer I chose initially is wrong because he is not doing what it says. This answer would have been right if they said something like "based on the ticket sales of the past, the plays performed were beautiful."

Please anyone correct me if any of my thinking is wrong in this and I look forward to contributing more posts!

[Jmaksimiuk]

Cverdugo, the answer is B. I'm not sure why you have E as the correct answer.

Here is an explanation for B:

The question is asking for the main point of the argument. The argument essentially states that there is skepticism about the claim that Shakespearian plays have always been appreciated by people who were uneducated. This skepticism is justified by the fact that the uneducated generally did not have access to Shakespeare's plays because the materials they were printed on were expensive. Thus, the main point of the argument is to attempt to prove that the less educated (and poorer) people could not have appreciated Shakespeare's plays (because they weren't familiar with them). This would have left only the elites to appreciate his plays.

[kissclem4u]

I would love to know about why B and A is wrong

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me put up a complete explanation for posterity.

Question Type: Flaw

ARGUMENT CORE =========

conc - Uneducated people in Shakespeare's time probably weren't knowing and loving Shakespeare

why?

prem - The editions of the plays from Shakespeare's time have fancy paper and bindings, and thus must have been too expensive to be attained by ordinary (uneducated) people.

========================

ANALYSIS OF CORE

Our job is to debate the author's conclusion, so let's assign ourselves the mindset of,
"Uneducated ppl in the 18th century did know and love Shakespeare."

The author says her premise:
"Oh yeah? How could they have afforded to know him? The 18th century editions of the plays are too fancy to be attainable by ordinary people!"

What could we say?

Maybe ... "Who says you needed to OWN an edition of a play in order to know and love someone's work! There are lots of musicians I know and love, even though I don't own any physical artifacts of their work. Maybe these poor people just saw Shakespeare's plays in the park, or read his plays at the library, or heard about them secondhand from the rich people they worked for."

Maybe ... "Who says the 18th century fancy editions you're talking about were the ONLY editions available? Maybe the fancy ones have survived two centuries, while the cheap, affordable ones have all deteriorated by now."

ANSWER CHOICES

I would remind myself that I need an answer that helps me argue how a poor person in the 18th century could have known and loved Shakes, even though that person couldn't afford a fancy edition of one of Shakespeare's plays.

(A) This has nothing to do with literary quality.

(B) Ditto for (B). "Aesthetic quality" means judging the artistic merit of Shakes' work. We're only here to judge whether a poor person would have had a way to know/love Shakespeare's work.

(C) In what sense did we impart 20th century standards on the early 18th?

(D) This argument has nothing to do with judging the quality of Shakespeare's works.

(E) Cool beans! This addresses how a poor person in the 18th century could have known and loved Shakes, even though they couldn't afford a fancy edition.

(A), (B), and (D) were really freebies, as long as we were dialed into the conclusion. The conclusion has nothing to do with judging the quality of Shakespeare's works. It only is making a claim about whether lower/middle class people were into Shakespeare.

[maanyaag591]

There are 2 questions of this set one is a weaken question of which the answer is E and another is Main point question of which the answer is B