Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 9

Incorrect. If the play was performed in 1480, then it must have been written in that year or before. That lines up with the timeline established, as the play very well could have been written a few decades before this one specific performance.

Incorrect. That would mean the coin existed in the time period in question, and it makes sense that it was mentioned in the play if it were written between 1431 and 1471.

Incorrect. 1468 falls within the mentioned timeline, so even though it's earlier than the cutoff point mentioned, it doesn't undermine it. To see why, consider this example—if we said that a certain TV cost between $500 and $1000, and you said that you knew it was $800, that wouldn't undermine our argument!

Incorrect. What's relevant is when he was alive, not when he reigned. This answer is trying to confuse you because it specifically mentions King Henry VI in the stimulus, and this is talking about a period where he wasn't king, but the stimulus never says that the dedication specifically refers to him as king (just that that was his title at his death).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
1431 - The rose noble is first circulated
1471 - Henry VI died
Mankind mentions the rose noble and is dedicated to a living Henry VI, so it was written between 1431 and 1471

Answer Anticipation:
This argument concludes that a play was written between a set period of years because of some details included in the play.

As a starting date to the range, the argument puts forward 1431. Why? Because the play mentions a certain coin that was first minted and circulated at that time. However, that assumes that the rose noble couldn't have been in the play unless it was already minted and circulated. Maybe the rose noble was first mentioned in the play, and then created as a reference to the play. Or maybe the rose noble was a long-planned coin that everyone knew about before it was first minted. Anything that suggests the rose noble could have shown up in this play before it was circulated/minted will weaken this argument.

As an ending date to the range, the argument puts forward 1471. Why? Because Henry VI died in that year, and he's mentioned as being alive in the dedication. It'd be weird to bring up that Henry VI was alive in the dedication if he had already died, but any answer suggesting that the play may have done that will weaken this argument. This seems less likely than our first anticipation, however!

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that people were talking ("much-discussed") about the rose noble 3 years before it was first minted and circulated in 1431. That could have resulted in it being mentioned in a play before that date, thus weakening the argument that the play couldn't have been written before then.

Key Takeaway:
When you can break an argument down into individual pieces, it can be helpful to do so in order to analyze those pieces. This most frequently shows up when we analyze the validity of an intermediate conclusion and then the main point separately, but it also happened here when we looked at the argument for the start and end date of a range.