Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q18 Historian: Those who claim that

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

Historian: Those who claim that Shakespeare did not write the plays commonly attributed to him are motivated purely by snobbery.

Conclusion

People who say that Shakespeare didn't write the plays attributed to him are motivated purely by snobbery.

Evidence

Shakes was the son of a glove maker, whereas the other potential authors of "his" plays were aristocrats, and many of the people arguing that these other people wrote S's plays are the descendants of these aristocrats.

Evaluate

Given this evidence, how could we argue that "people claiming S didn't write all the plays commonly attributed to him are NOT motivated purely by snobbery (they might be motivated partially by snobbery, but they're motivated by something else as well).

First of all, are these people even aware that S is the son of a glove maker? They can't be using this against Shakes if they don't know it.

Secondly, it says that many of the people claiming S didn't write all the plays are descendants of aristocrats, but that leaves open the possibility that many others claiming the same thing aren't descendants of aristocrats. They might be descendants of lower class people and have no "snobby" motive at all.

Finally, it doesn't seem like this argument gives much of a charitable reading of the opponents' position. What is their evidence for thinking Shakespeare didn't write all these plays?

Goal

Since the conclusion so dismissively says that "these claims are 100% snobbery", we just need any answer that allows us to argue that at least part of this isn't snobbery, it's coming from some other source of evidence or motivation (maybe it's coming from jealously)

18.

The reasoning in the historian's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Bad Premise/Conclusion Match

    This accuses the argument of being, "Since the people claiming X are motivated purely by snobbery, X is false." The argument was actually, "Since many of the people claiming X are descendants of rich people whereas Shakespeare was relatively poor, the people claiming X are motivated purely by snobbery".

    18% picked this

  2. takes for granted that anyone

    Not a Flaw

    This is a valid assumption / inference to make. If I'm motivated purely by snobbery, then by definition I'm not motivated by money, fame, jealously, legitimate historical evidence, etc. This portrays the argument as being, "Since they are motivated purely by snobbery, we can conclude that they were not motivated by historical evidence". This doesn't match the argument core, but it is also a valid argument. If you accept that premise, then you have to accept that conclusion.

    21% picked this

  3. fails to consider adequately the

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: people who claim Shakespeare was writer We're only assessing the motives of people who claim Shakespeare was not the writer. It's not relevant what the motives are of people who claim that Shakespeare was the writer.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to exclude the possibility

    Why this is right

    Fails to consider / Ignores possibility phrasing means they're presenting us with a potential objection. Would it weaken the argument to say there is legitimate evidence motivating those who say Shakespeare didn't write those plays? Of course. That would contradict the idea that these people are motivated purely by snobbery.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    54% picked this

  5. makes use of an assumption

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous flaw of Circular Reasoning, in which the conclusion is a reiteration of the premise. The author's argument wasn't circular. He did assume that descendants of aristocrats could be motivated by snobbery to deny authorship to someone (Shakespeare) who wasn't the child of an aristocrat. However, one could accept that assumption without having accepted that "all the people who claim Shakespeare wasn't the other are 100% motivated by snobbery".

    3% 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