Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q9 The play Mankind must have been

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The play Mankind must have been written between 1431 and 1471.

Conclusion

Mankind must have been written between 1431 and 1471.

Intermediate Conclusion

It can't have been written before 1431.

Evidence (for)

The rose noble is a coin mentioned in the play, and it was first circulated in 1431.

Intermediate Conclusion

The play can't have been written after 1471.

Evidence (since)

King Henry is mentioned as a living monarch in the play's dedication, and he died in 1471.

Evaluate

This argument tries to box us into a 1431 - 1471 timeframe, so if we're going to fight this conclusion, we'll need to either argue that the play could have been written before 1431 or argue that it could have been written after 1471.

Given that ... the rose noble is mentioned in the play and the rose noble wasn't first circulated until 1431,

How could we argue that ... the play was written before 1431?

We could say that the play was mostly written prior to 1431, let's say 99% of it was written in 1429 and then they just added the line about the rose noble in 1431.

Or maybe the play was written in 1429 and the playwright invented the name "rose noble". Then the play was so successful that when the government needed to choose a name for its new currency in 1431, they picked "rose noble" as an homage to the beloved work.

Given that ... Henry VI is mentioned as a living monarch in the play's dedication, but he died in 1471,

How could we argue that ... the play was written after 1471?

I guess we could say the play's dedication was being facetious? The play was written in 1475, and even though Henry VI died in 1471, the playwright felt like he was "still living" in the people's hearts? That's a stretch.

The argument would be most seriously weakened if which one of the following were discovered?

The Royal Theatre Company includes
Irrelevant
The fact that the play was still performed in 1480 doesn't tell us anything about whether it was or wasn't written between 1431 and 1471. If we found out that the play was performed in 1420, that would weaken!
3% picked this
Another coin mentioned in the
No Impact
If the play were written between 1431 and 1471, it can certainly mention a coin that was first minted in 1422. So this fact poses no problem for the argument. If another coin mentioned in the play was first minted in 1480, that would pose a problem for believing the play was written in 1431 - 1471.
15% picked this
The rose noble was neither
No Impact
This fact doesn't pose any conflict for the author's timeline. The rose noble was first circulated in 1431. Maybe the play was written in 1440 and mentioned the rose noble, and then the rose noble was phased out after 1468. That's all compatible with the author's conclusion.
4% picked this
Although Henry VI was deposed
No Impact: deposed / restored
For the sake of the author's logic, it doesn't matter when Henry was on or off the throne. We only really care if he was still alive. The author is assuming that if he's mentioned as a living monarch in the dedication, then we was still alive during the writing of the play, which means sometime before 1471.
3% picked this
Correct
In a letter written in
Why this is right
This allows us to argue that the play could have been written before 1431. The author will be like, "What do you mean? How could it have been written before 1431 if the play mentions the rose noble and the rose noble wasn't circulated until 1431?" This answer lets us say, "C'mon, my dude --- yes, the rose noble wasn't in people's pockets until 1431, but people knew about the rose noble years before that. As early as 1428, people were gossiping about this forthcoming coin called the rose noble. It was much-discussed!" Thus, the playwright could have written the play in 1428 and included the rose noble in the play, knowing that the coin was soon forthcoming, and trusting that her audience had probably already heard of the much-discussed forthcoming coin.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free