Help

Can we get this question answered? I can't tell why A and B are incorrect and D is correct.

@JayDee8732 and @wills, Happy to help. Let's take a look at (A), (B), and (D). The question reads, "The reasoning in the historian's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument..." (A) says, "presumes, without providing justification, that a claim cannot be true if those who advance it are motivated by snobbery" The problem with (A) is that the author does not say for certain that the claims that are doubting Shakespeare are false; rather, the author's conclusion is simply about their motivations, so we can get rid of this choice. (B) says, "takes for granted that anyone who is motivated purely by snobbery cannot also be motivated by legitimate historical evidence" The problem with (B) is that the assumption that it talks about is minor, and it's not even a flawed assumption to make. "Purely" just means the same thing as "only," so if those people were motivated purely by snobbery, then it's not possible they could have been motivated by anything else. Additionally, the fact that these critics of Shakespeare are motivated purely by snobbery is the conclusion that the author attempts—but fails—to establish, and (B) discusses this as if it's a premise of the argument, which it isn't. Thus, we can get rid of (B). (D) says, "fails to exclude the possibility that there might be legitimate evidence motivating those who reject Shakespeare's authorship" (D) is just what we need. Although the people are aristocrats, it's possible that they could be motivated by real evidence instead of only their snobbery. Additionally, perhaps both real evidence and snobbery are factors in their motivation. At any rate, it's not necessarily just snobbery. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

But doesn't the author *exclude* the possibility of real evidence when they say the people are motivated *purely* by snobbery? So he didn't fail to exclude this possibility. Was it supposed to say include? Or am I reading this wrong?

@Heidiz, It is a statement that weakens the argument, the fact that the author fails to exclude the possibility that there are other motives aside from snobbery is a flaw in the argument, that is why this is the correct answer choice.

I got this question correct, but am still confused by the phrase "fails to exclude". Doesn't that phrase just mean does not exclude, which just translates to includes? So the author *includes* "the possibility possibility that there might be legitimate evidence motivating those who reject Shakespeare's authorship", which is what makes this the correct answer? Is that correct? If it is a correct interpretation of the phrase 'fails to exclude', doesn't the author 'exclude' this possibility by claiming that these people are only/'purely' motivated by their snobbery?

It means fails to rule out an alternative cause of the motivation. I thought the sentence with "motivated purely by snobbery" was the conclusion, not a premise, so the conclusion is not supported by evidence that rules out the alternate possibility that the critics of Shakespeare are motivated by legitimate evidence.

D: failed to exclude the possibility that there might be legitimate evidence motivating "those who reject Shakespeare's authorship", in other words the people who are motivated purely by snobbery. how does the author fail to exclude alternative motives, when he says they are motivated purely by snobbery. Also, choice B states; "Takes for granted that anyone who is motivated purely by snobbery cannot also be motivated by legitimate historical evidence". Both choices are talking about the same people who are purely motivated by snobbery, but I think since D is a little more vague and less strong than B it is the safer bet here.