Question

Scholar: A newly discovered manuscript attributed to William Shakespeare must have been written after 1600 but before 1605. We believe it cannot have been written earlier than 1600 because it references a historical event that occurred in that year, and it cannot have been written after 1605 because it contains a reference to a play that was first performed in that year. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

• A. No copies of the referenced play were available to Shakespeare after 1605.
• B. Shakespeare did not revise or edit his manuscripts extensively.
• C. The referenced event in 1600 was widely known and documented at the time.
• D. The ink used in the manuscript can be accurately dated.
• E. Shakespeare's writing style did not change between 1600 and 1605.

Hint:

When an argument dates a whole object based on a single part or feature, it often assumes the object is a unified whole created at one time. Look for an answer choice that addresses the possibility of later additions, revisions, or compilations.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is an assumption question. The scholar's argument uses internal evidence (references to events and a play) to assign a date range to an entire manuscript. We need to identify the unstated premise that is necessary for this method of dating to be valid.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The Argument:

Evidence 1: Reference to a 1600 event \(\rightarrow\) Dates the manuscript to post-1600.
Evidence 2: Reference to a 1605 play \(\rightarrow\) Dates the manuscript to pre-1605. (Note: The logic here is strange as written, but we must work with the scholar's reasoning. The scholar uses the 1605 reference to set an upper bound).
Conclusion: The entire manuscript was written between 1600 and 1605.
The Logical Gap/Assumption: The scholar's method of dating the entire work based on specific references is only valid if the entire work was written at one time. What if Shakespeare wrote the main text in, for example, 1599, and then in 1606 went back and added references to both the 1600 event and the 1605 play? In that case, the references would not accurately date the original composition. Therefore, the scholar must assume that the manuscript is a unified piece, not subject to later additions or revisions.
Let's evaluate the options:

(A) This is not a necessary assumption for the scholar's argument as stated.
(B) This is the correct answer. The argument's validity depends on the idea that the references are contemporary with the original writing of the entire manuscript. If Shakespeare could have added these references years after the initial composition, the dating method falls apart. The scholar must assume the manuscript was not revised later.
(C) This strengthens the reliability of the first piece of evidence but isn't a necessary assumption for the overall argument structure, which relies on both pieces of evidence dating the entire work.
(D) This provides an alternative method of dating; it does not support the scholar's argument based on internal references.
(E) The scholar is using content-based dating, not stylistic analysis. Therefore, an assumption about unchanging style is not required for this particular argument.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The scholar's method of dating the entire manuscript based on specific internal references is only logical if one assumes the manuscript was created as a single, unified work at a specific time and not edited or added to later.