Many scholars claim that Shakespeare's

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct97% picked this

   In historical drama, the aesthetic value of the work is not necessarily undermined

   Why this is right

   This is a very weird correct answer for several reasons, but this is the only answer that has any language that would come close to matching up with our conclusion: "irrelevant to appreciating his work" .... "the aesthetic value is not undermined". It's still a far cry, but it's the best available. The author was arguing that it's irrelevant to appreciating Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III whether that portrayal was inaccurate or provided by some of his haters. This answer weakly supports that idea, by saying, "historical inaccuracies don't necessarily undermine aesthetic value". How is this answer weird? Let me count the ways. (<-- Shakepearean) 1) it's incredibly weak. It is basically like a Defender Necessary Assumption answer. If aesthetic value is necessarily undermined by historical inaccuracies, that would crush this argument. So it strengthens somewhat to rule out that idea. But this answer is only saying, "it's possible that the historical inaccuracies of Richard III don't taint the aesthetic value." 2) there is NO language relating to the Evidence! Almost every single correct answer on Principle Strengthen is 1/2 prem, 1/2 conc, so it's very weird that this answer doesn't have any connection to the author's actual evidence, which is that the portrayal is super interesting and compelling in its own right. 3) the language match with the conclusion is super weak! As we mentioned before, the closest we get to "X is irrelevant to appreciating the work" is "X does not undermine the aesthetic value". Overall, this question is a great example of when the test's tendencies abandon us and we just need to pick best available.

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

   97%
2. B

   Opposite0% picked this

   In dealing with real people, dramatists should reflect their

   This would help the opponents argue that Shakespeare should have portrayed Richard III accurately, rather than helping our author argue that it's irrelevant whether he portrayed Richard III accruately.

   0%
3. C

   Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Shakespeare's historical importance puts him beyond the scope of all

   The author never discusses Shakespeare's historical importance. And Shakespeare isn't being criticized necessarily. People just said his portrayal was inaccurate, which isn't necessarily a criticism. It does feel like this answer is so powerful that it would exonerate Shakespeare from any negative ideas. But the author's conclusion isn't really about defending Shakespeare. It's about trying to show that "concerns about accuracy are irrelevant to appreciating a work". This answer isn't addressing that as much as (A) is.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match0% picked this

   History is always told by propagandists from the

   This has absolutely nothing do with whether "the accuracy of a portrayal is / isn't relevant to appreciating the work".

   0%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   Historical inaccuracies should be corrected only when they impugn the reputations

   The contrapositive of this would say "If a historical inaccuracy isn't besmirching the reputation of a good person, then you should not correct that inaccuracy". The conclusion wasn't about whether Shakespeare should / shouldn't have corrected an inaccuracy. It was about whether inaccuracies are / aren't relevant to appreciating that work.

   1%