Q9 - The play Mankind must have

[carly.applebaum]

i narrowed the choices down to C and E, but i'm not really sure why either of them is correct or wrong.

is E correct because its gives evidence that the coin was in fact made before 1431 since a merchant claimed to see it?

i guess "design" is taken to mean "minted"? i was thrown off by that wording.

thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Good attention to detail. In this case, design is different than being minted. We are told as fact that the rose noble was first circulated in 1431. And this is taken to support the idea that the play had to be written between 1431-1471.

However, we are only told that the coin was discussed in the play. So, if it were true, as choice E states, that there was much discussion about a coin yet to be circulated, then that weakens the idea that this play had to be written at the 1431 year mark and onward.

This play could have been written in 1428 with no incompatibility with the facts. We do not need the coin to be minted for it to be discussed, as choice E tells us, there was already discussion about it.

[sumukh09]

Why is B) wrong?

[genieb]

I have the same question. I chose E but at one point also considered B.

I think the word "minted" is the key to why B is wrong. Even if it were minted in 1422, doesn't mean it was "circulated" then, so it can't be a proper comparison with the rose noble coin.

Other replies are welcome.

[fmuirhea]

The argument is attempting to provide a plausible timeframe for the play's composition by pointing to certain signposts: the rose noble's circulation, and the living status of King Henry VI. The upper limit of 1471 seems fairly unassailable given its evidence (unless we unreasonably assume that the play's dedication is in denial of his death or lying for some reason), but the lower limit is certainly debatable, as it rests on a particular assumption: that the coin did not exist (either physically or as a concept) until it was circulated. (E) directly attacks this assumption by pointing out that the rose noble could have been known before it came into actual use.

I'll attempt to explain why (B) doesn't work as a weakener with an analogy. Let's use songs instead of coins: pretend the rose noble is Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe," which came out in September 2011, and this mysterious other coin is Justin Bieber's "Baby," which came out in January 2010.

Analogously, we'd say that the play must have been written no earlier than September 2011, because it mentions "Call Me Maybe." Would adding information that it also mentions "Baby" weaken this? No, because the Carly Rae song is still pushing the time limit closer to 2011 - we can always have older things mentioned, but we're trying to find the newest thing in order to narrow down the timeline. Let's take it further: if the play also mentioned the moon landing (1969), would that move its date back? Nope, because Carly Rae is still pushing it to 2011. Unless somebody was wondrously prescient in 1969, the mention of "Call Me Maybe" places us firmly in the last few years.

The assumption that applies to the coin would still apply to the song, especially since songs don't suddenly materialize out of thin air: they need to be composed and produced before release. So, even in our analogy, the specific date of September 2011 is probably wrong, as it's possible some industry insiders heard tell of the catchy hit before its release and perhaps created an anticipatory buzz - just as in (E) the merchant saw the design for the rose noble before its minting and subsequent circulation.

(B) actually goes the wrong way as an attempted weakener. You'd want to see something like, "Another coin mentioned in the play was first minted in 1450," because this would push things further from 1431 (although not necessarily, because we'd still have to wrestle with the assumption that a coin cannot be heard of until it is minted - maybe this is the Chinese Democracy of coins). The big problem with (B) is that it doesn't attack the main assumption at play, that the rose noble could not have existed in any form until its circulation.

(A) Indicates that it was certainly written before 1480, but isn't specific enough to push it to 1472 or beyond - the upper limit, as mentioned, is pretty solid, anyway.

(C) Again, the upper limit isn't really in dispute, but even if the coin was taken out of circulation, it could still be mentioned, so 1468-1471 are still viable.

(D) Indicates perhaps that it wasn't written between 1461-1469, but 1471 is still in play. More importantly, this answer choice fails to address the lower limit, which is the biggest concern.