Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 2 · Question 18

Incorrect. The argument doesn't make any determination about the truth of the claims, but it does conclude that a group is motivated by snobbery, so this answer misses the mark both by suggesting a conclusion that isn't there and ignoring the conclusion that is.

Incorrect. That's not an assumption—that's what the word "purely" means.

Incorrect. The conclusion is only about those who claim he didn't write the plays, so those who claim he did are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:

Facts:
Shakespeare was the son of a glove maker
Other claimed authors of his work were aristocrats
Some claiming that others wrote Skahepeare's works are descendants of these aristocrats

Therefore Ð These claims are motivated by pure snobbery

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the conclusion of an argument contains an adverb—especially a strong one—you should dig in. Here, that "purely" means that the Historian believes there is no motivation other than snobbery at play.

Has she done enough to establish that? Not at all. Sure, she may have provided enough evidence to show that some of those claiming Shakespeare didn't write his plays might be motivated at least in part by snobbery. But that's a far cry from the conclusion that all of them are motivated purely by snobbery.

Any answer that highlights there could be other motives at play—either by themselves or in concert with snobbery—will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
The Historian provides evidence that those who claim Shakespeare didn't write the plays might be motivated in part by snobbery, but she concludes that they are motivated purely by snobbery. As such, she ignores other potential motives—such as legitimate evidence. This answer highlights that flaw.

Key Takeaway:
The stronger the conclusion, the stronger the premises needed to back it up. Whenever you see very strong language in the conclusion (here, "purely") make sure the premises are equally strong.

Incorrect. This answer is a very long way of describing a circular reasoning flaw. However, the argument uses information about Shakespeare, other claimed authors, and the claimants themselves to draw a conclusion about motive—that's not a restatement or an assumption of truth.