For a test that explicitly states you should not use outside knowledge, it tends to play with outside knowledge quite a bit. Take this question for example, which I disagree with the correct answer.
Clear indicators of who this is: First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet. Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.
According to the LSAT it is (C) The abridgment was produced by an actor who had played a role in Hamlet.
Wouldn't this be more likely that the actor who had a role to have a copy of Hamlet? Namely since they are in the play and need to know how the other characters interact with one another? And would have been present with other actors during rehearsals, who would of had other portions of Hamlet that they would have had access to? (To contradict the outside knowledge of Book Cost of the 17th century).
Instead this answer preys on outside knowledge. To someone with now outside knowledge of how theatre works, there is no strong indication or assumption that actors "could lack a copy". To further contradict the explanation, "Books haven’t always been as cheap as they are now, so if you were producing a play back in the day you might make cast members share a copy rather than each having his own." How would we know this based on the stimulus?
On the strength of assumptions, it is stronger to assume that the actor had access to Hamlet, rather than not. it is more reasonable that "The abridgement was prepared by a spectator of a performance of Hamlet." If we are going based on the stimulus:
First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet.
It is more likely to assume a spectator not to have a copy of hamlet than an actor who is in rehearsal and reading directly from a copy to know the lines. Even if the actor shares, they had a copy.
Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.
This one does lean into the actor, but could lean more into the spectator since it is very common to assume an individual to be more likely to attach to one character and focus on there parts than others. Take for example the favoritism of the characters and lore of most superheroes and villains. When making an abridgement of the story, they would have a better rendering of what was said by their favorite character than other characters.
To me a clearer indication is the individual "did not possess a copy of Hamlet." Without outside knowledge it is more likely a spectator would not have a copy of Hamlet than an individual who had to read a script for hamlet would not have one. We can split hairs on the second one, but because of this marginality, it is clear that the first one is more likely a spectator would not have a copy rather than actor who needs to read hamlet to preform.
@DouglasSmith Wouldn't this be more likely that the actor who had a role to have a copy of Hamlet?
You just brought in an assumption. Why is it necessary an actor have a copy of Hamlet? Why would it not be equally likely they had a copy of their speech only?
It’s more reasonable actually to picture an actor and spectator to have equally messy recollections of the entire play without a copy of it. The actor may be slightly better but not necessarily. And regardless, the fact a single speech was much much better than the rest of the play, indicates someone intimately familiar with that particular speech. Which points to an actor that did that speech much more than it points to a random spectator who would be more likely to remember as well as they remembered the rest and no better.
@DouglasSmith regardless, I would encourage you to ask “why am I wrong in my reasoning” and not “isn’t this questions wrong”? The LSAT questions are not wrong. Just take that as gospel truth
@danjpeach96 While yes, the Actor would be someone intimately familiar with that particular speech, it's not unreasonable to say that the spectator was not also intimately familiar with the speech. But the restriction that the "The person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet" more likely rules out the actor since they would be more likely to have a copy of the play than the spectator would. Without the outside knowledge of the 17th century and the cost of books, it is not clear that an actor who, needs to read from Hamelt, would not have a copy or at least access to the copy.
Yes take the Gospel as truth and I would use a scale of assumption: Very Strong (VS) --> Uncertain --> Very Weak (W). Remember, not using outside knowledge and applying book prices and time period restrictions.
The actor not having a copy (Very Weak)
Needs to read a copy in order to memorize the lines.
The Spectator not having a copy (Slightly Below Very Strong)
the spectator is there to view the play.
The Actor containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (strong- in the middle of VS and Uncertain)
While yes he would have an accurate knowledge of his role. But he didn't have a copy of the play, so how could he truly get an accurate knowledge with out possessing a copy?
The Spectator containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (Uncertain)
The Spectator is there because one is interested in viewing the play. Indicating some level of desire to listen and retain.
I would say it is more likely the spectator paid attention than the Actor, who needs to read a copy of Hamlet to memorize and accurately render the speeches of their characters, to not have a copy of Hamlet. The huge gap in the first restriction is what gets me.
@DouglasSmith Remember, the author needs to not have had a copy, AND needs to have an abnormally accurate recollection of only a particular character's speech and not the rest of the play.
We don't know what happened. We are judging the reasonableness of assumptions. Even if one thought that it was more likely a spectator did not have a copy of Hamlet than an author did not have a copy, you need to fulfill the other assumption. It is somewhat reasonable to make the first assumption. But it is very far-fetched (un-reasonable) to make the assumption a spectator was able to memorize a particular character's speech so well as to be described as "very accurate" compared to "slipshod" for the rest of the play? This second required assumption is so un-reasonable as to make the slightly greater reasonableness of the first assumption of less relative importance.
@danjpeach96 I find it very very unlikely that an actor who is having to memorize a character's speeches to not have a copy of Hamlet. I'll let the LSAT writers have this, but to assume an actor doesn't have a copy of a play is similar to assuming that a first chair in an orchestra doesn't have a copy of the music and they aren't able to practice on their own and some how have a deep understanding of the piece they are reciting. Or players in a sport don't have access to a playbook to study the plays.
@DouglasSmith Did not possess =/= never possessed. If I was a wide receiver, and had a playbook, and knew all my routes well, and then lost the playbook and a year later wrote my own abridged version of it, its likely that I would be able to re-create my own routes very well, and not the rest of the playbook as well. The stim never says I never had access or even ownership temporarily of the playbook, just that I did not have possess a copy of it still.
@danjpeach96 This makes it more clear, and less letting the LSAT writers have this.
I still somewhat believe the likelihood of not having the Book as an actor would be unlikely. Namely if they had access to it in the past and are taking up writing an Abridgment. However, your analogy works to curve this.
Thank you for taking the time to dissect my understanding. It helped curve my thought process on this. Even though it feels wrong to think like that, it also makes sense.
@DouglasSmith yeah and I also agree its unlikely. Its not a perfect answer. Of all the answers, C & D are most likely even though both have serious issues. But D has much more issues with reasonableness.
I just got to weakening module, and now reading this one all I can do is think of holes to poke in both of these.
But its important to remember what the stem is for this question. Its most supported. Not must be true, not weakening. Just simply. What is most supported, or in otherwords, least unsupported.
Wouldn't an actor need some kind of a solid understanding of the rest of the play to remember their lines? on the other hand a spectator could have been fixated by one stellar actor from the performance they saw and neglected to remember any of the other roles. I hate questions like this
@nehirrs25 While I understand the reasoning, this is making some big assumptions. How would a spectator even get ahold of a script? Did they write it down themselves while watching?
We can more reasonably assume an actor would have at least a parts worth of the play.
Just an aside as a Shakespeare lover-- the actors indeed only got their own parts of the script! They would only know the last couple words from the line right before theirs so they knew when to come in. I can't remember if it was for anti-copying or to save paper, however.
Why would an actor not have a full version of the play? If they need to study the lines they'd have to memorize their lines AND have access to the other actor's lines for cues. It explains why their character would be more refined and others more 'slipshod' if doing it from memory, but why would it exclude them from having a copy of the play?
Wouldn't us making the assumption that in the 17th century that printing was limited be relying on our own understanding to answer that part of the question? These question types are tripping me up currently.
@MR.Washington I thought the same thing - in my mind, there were a (potentially) better assumption to be made that since he was an actor, he did not have a copy of it because he had memorized his role so well (hence the very accurate rendering).
i'm in an advanced shakespeare course at school, and a guy in my class acts in a some shakespeare play thing that simulates the conditions of how plays were conducted in shakespearean times.
he told us that back in the day, every actor had their own lines, and basically nothing of anything else: no knowledge of other people's casted roles or lines, no dress rehearsals, etc.
this random knowledge allowed me to choose the correct answer choice, so i felt compelled to share. yay!
@yam Ohhh that explains it. When I did a short stint as a theater kid in Middle and High school I memorized my lines and then learned the others lines for cues. If this is actually how it would've been done in the 17th cent that makes more sense 💀
This one might be the most ridiculous question I have encountered so far. I personally picked D off the assumption that an actor in a play would have at least read the source material of the play they are in. I also felt that it was a reasonable assumption that a spectator or "fan" of Hamlet could be particularly interested in a character or speech in the play and that could explain why the speech was very accurate but the rest of the play is put together rather haphazardly. For the correct answer to rely on outside knowledge of the reality of how expensive and exclusive owning books in the 17th century is seems like a huge stretch.
Iffy question, because it's assumption of answer (c) vs assumption (d). I got it right originally, and then got it wrong in blind review because I said to myself "if we're making assumptions, how could an actor NOT have a copy of Hamlet? vs spectator just be a fanatic about a character's role?" It's really funny how watching the video, the explanation actually touched on this question. If you were frustrated with this question, welcome to the club :)
it is just as possible that the actor did have a copy of hamlet as a spectator was obsessed with a certain actor... the only way to choose this answer is with outside knowledge of 17th century printing habits, which goes against everything we have learned about outside knowledge? idk this one seems like a stretch to me
@LiviaLSAT I was so-so on that part, what made it click for me was the only accurate rendering of a single character, made think right away of an actor.
this shit must be in my head cause i was doing awful on the other RRE questions and did well on this one even though it supposedly uses the same logic?
@woffutt In shakespear's time, actors were not actually given a full script. That being said, the first line of both choices can't be assumed.
Actors: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We can only say they receive their parts for sure.)
Spectator: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We all know people who have seen Harry Potter, but not read a single word of the book.)
So, we have to go on the second statement and fact.
Can a spectator replicate one characters lines perfectly? (or speech?) Maybe. Like Prozd on Peter Pan. BUT maybe not.
How about actors: Well, almost most definitely (still an assumption, but not a stretch) they know their own part quite well. Do they know the others? Maybe, but maybe not. BUT they know at least their own.
So, if you are between C and D. Considering the first line is an assumption on both (And if you are a literature historian, not even that), then the second line would b the determining spot. (At least this was how I took it.)
Honestly i just looked at the second piece of evidence to choose actor instead of spectator. Second piece leans way more towards actor than spectator: an actor would be able to render a speech much clearer if it's their own speech (rehearsed and memorized) compared to a spectator (merely observed the speech).
@MelanieGonzalez This is a most supported question, not must be true. So the one that most supports it doesn't actually have to do a good job supporting it, just better than the other options
@MelanieGonzalez When I look back on it (I got it wrong too for the same reasoning), the actor only received lines for their role, not the entire play. This is why they were able to recite 1 characters lines but not the rest completely.
1: This actor is not mentioned in another play. Other plays are not mentioned. Similarly: what reason do we have to believe that a firefighter in the adjacent town owns a copy. We don't. Its Reasonable to assume that the person with these traits would be an actor not a firefighter.
@SMRegalado Yes but remember our goal is most strongly supported. Actor is vague they could be a child who acts in Bollywood for all we know, why would they own a copy of hamlet, but actor in Hamlet is quite specific and fits perfectly.
If it's unreasonable to assume that a spectator cannot remeber a speech (one speech), then it's unreasonable to assume an actor does not have a copy of the play. Between C and D there are two competing unreasonable assumptions.
Also, no offense, but how the fuck am I supposed to recognize that the printing press was not invented in the 17th century.
Yeah this one stumped me a bit, I am confused by the reasonable assumption that we cannot assume that an actor would have access to a copy of Hamlet. The 17th century is known for when the printing press exploded in popularity. And, this was also when it was popularized in more common uses, so I feel it would be reasonable to assume access to same, especially studying for the role.
Nonetheless, I still see how C is the better answer here ultimately than D, but it feels like two competing assumptions, one that an actor does not have access, and the other that a spectator did not just hone in on a single performance during the play. Argh, missed this one ultimately, oh well.
@SMRegalado But are they an actor in Hamlet? I would say its reasonable to assume that an actor who has partaken in the play in question, owns a copy. However, what reason do we have to believe that an actor in say Twelfth Night, also owns a copy of Hamlet.
I used the spectrum of support and assumptions to narrow down between C and D. Once I had those two, C made less and more reasonable assumptions, so I picked it.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
195 comments
For a test that explicitly states you should not use outside knowledge, it tends to play with outside knowledge quite a bit. Take this question for example, which I disagree with the correct answer.
Clear indicators of who this is: First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet. Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.
According to the LSAT it is (C) The abridgment was produced by an actor who had played a role in Hamlet.
Wouldn't this be more likely that the actor who had a role to have a copy of Hamlet? Namely since they are in the play and need to know how the other characters interact with one another? And would have been present with other actors during rehearsals, who would of had other portions of Hamlet that they would have had access to? (To contradict the outside knowledge of Book Cost of the 17th century).
Instead this answer preys on outside knowledge. To someone with now outside knowledge of how theatre works, there is no strong indication or assumption that actors "could lack a copy". To further contradict the explanation, "Books haven’t always been as cheap as they are now, so if you were producing a play back in the day you might make cast members share a copy rather than each having his own." How would we know this based on the stimulus?
On the strength of assumptions, it is stronger to assume that the actor had access to Hamlet, rather than not. it is more reasonable that "The abridgement was prepared by a spectator of a performance of Hamlet." If we are going based on the stimulus:
First, the person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet.
It is more likely to assume a spectator not to have a copy of hamlet than an actor who is in rehearsal and reading directly from a copy to know the lines. Even if the actor shares, they had a copy.
Second, the abridgment contains a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters, but a slipshod handling of all the other parts.
This one does lean into the actor, but could lean more into the spectator since it is very common to assume an individual to be more likely to attach to one character and focus on there parts than others. Take for example the favoritism of the characters and lore of most superheroes and villains. When making an abridgement of the story, they would have a better rendering of what was said by their favorite character than other characters.
To me a clearer indication is the individual "did not possess a copy of Hamlet." Without outside knowledge it is more likely a spectator would not have a copy of Hamlet than an individual who had to read a script for hamlet would not have one. We can split hairs on the second one, but because of this marginality, it is clear that the first one is more likely a spectator would not have a copy rather than actor who needs to read hamlet to preform.
@DouglasSmith Wouldn't this be more likely that the actor who had a role to have a copy of Hamlet?
You just brought in an assumption. Why is it necessary an actor have a copy of Hamlet? Why would it not be equally likely they had a copy of their speech only?
It’s more reasonable actually to picture an actor and spectator to have equally messy recollections of the entire play without a copy of it. The actor may be slightly better but not necessarily. And regardless, the fact a single speech was much much better than the rest of the play, indicates someone intimately familiar with that particular speech. Which points to an actor that did that speech much more than it points to a random spectator who would be more likely to remember as well as they remembered the rest and no better.
@DouglasSmith regardless, I would encourage you to ask “why am I wrong in my reasoning” and not “isn’t this questions wrong”? The LSAT questions are not wrong. Just take that as gospel truth
@danjpeach96 While yes, the Actor would be someone intimately familiar with that particular speech, it's not unreasonable to say that the spectator was not also intimately familiar with the speech. But the restriction that the "The person who undertook the abridgment clearly did not possess a copy of Hamlet" more likely rules out the actor since they would be more likely to have a copy of the play than the spectator would. Without the outside knowledge of the 17th century and the cost of books, it is not clear that an actor who, needs to read from Hamelt, would not have a copy or at least access to the copy.
Yes take the Gospel as truth and I would use a scale of assumption: Very Strong (VS) --> Uncertain --> Very Weak (W). Remember, not using outside knowledge and applying book prices and time period restrictions.
The actor not having a copy (Very Weak)
Needs to read a copy in order to memorize the lines.
The Spectator not having a copy (Slightly Below Very Strong)
the spectator is there to view the play.
The Actor containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (strong- in the middle of VS and Uncertain)
While yes he would have an accurate knowledge of his role. But he didn't have a copy of the play, so how could he truly get an accurate knowledge with out possessing a copy?
The Spectator containing "a very accurate rendering of the speeches of one of the characters" (Uncertain)
The Spectator is there because one is interested in viewing the play. Indicating some level of desire to listen and retain.
I would say it is more likely the spectator paid attention than the Actor, who needs to read a copy of Hamlet to memorize and accurately render the speeches of their characters, to not have a copy of Hamlet. The huge gap in the first restriction is what gets me.
@DouglasSmith Remember, the author needs to not have had a copy, AND needs to have an abnormally accurate recollection of only a particular character's speech and not the rest of the play.
We don't know what happened. We are judging the reasonableness of assumptions. Even if one thought that it was more likely a spectator did not have a copy of Hamlet than an author did not have a copy, you need to fulfill the other assumption. It is somewhat reasonable to make the first assumption. But it is very far-fetched (un-reasonable) to make the assumption a spectator was able to memorize a particular character's speech so well as to be described as "very accurate" compared to "slipshod" for the rest of the play? This second required assumption is so un-reasonable as to make the slightly greater reasonableness of the first assumption of less relative importance.
@danjpeach96 I find it very very unlikely that an actor who is having to memorize a character's speeches to not have a copy of Hamlet. I'll let the LSAT writers have this, but to assume an actor doesn't have a copy of a play is similar to assuming that a first chair in an orchestra doesn't have a copy of the music and they aren't able to practice on their own and some how have a deep understanding of the piece they are reciting. Or players in a sport don't have access to a playbook to study the plays.
@DouglasSmith Did not possess =/= never possessed. If I was a wide receiver, and had a playbook, and knew all my routes well, and then lost the playbook and a year later wrote my own abridged version of it, its likely that I would be able to re-create my own routes very well, and not the rest of the playbook as well. The stim never says I never had access or even ownership temporarily of the playbook, just that I did not have possess a copy of it still.
@danjpeach96 This makes it more clear, and less letting the LSAT writers have this.
I still somewhat believe the likelihood of not having the Book as an actor would be unlikely. Namely if they had access to it in the past and are taking up writing an Abridgment. However, your analogy works to curve this.
Thank you for taking the time to dissect my understanding. It helped curve my thought process on this. Even though it feels wrong to think like that, it also makes sense.
@DouglasSmith yeah and I also agree its unlikely. Its not a perfect answer. Of all the answers, C & D are most likely even though both have serious issues. But D has much more issues with reasonableness.
I just got to weakening module, and now reading this one all I can do is think of holes to poke in both of these.
But its important to remember what the stem is for this question. Its most supported. Not must be true, not weakening. Just simply. What is most supported, or in otherwords, least unsupported.
Too ez :p
Wouldn't an actor need some kind of a solid understanding of the rest of the play to remember their lines? on the other hand a spectator could have been fixated by one stellar actor from the performance they saw and neglected to remember any of the other roles. I hate questions like this
@nehirrs25 yeah, this part confused me, I also thought he would have a copy of the play.
@nehirrs25 While I understand the reasoning, this is making some big assumptions. How would a spectator even get ahold of a script? Did they write it down themselves while watching?
We can more reasonably assume an actor would have at least a parts worth of the play.
Just an aside as a Shakespeare lover-- the actors indeed only got their own parts of the script! They would only know the last couple words from the line right before theirs so they knew when to come in. I can't remember if it was for anti-copying or to save paper, however.
Why would an actor not have a full version of the play? If they need to study the lines they'd have to memorize their lines AND have access to the other actor's lines for cues. It explains why their character would be more refined and others more 'slipshod' if doing it from memory, but why would it exclude them from having a copy of the play?
this one is interesting because i felt like i pulled an assumption out of my ass and somehow got it right
?????????
Wouldn't us making the assumption that in the 17th century that printing was limited be relying on our own understanding to answer that part of the question? These question types are tripping me up currently.
@MR.Washington I thought the same thing - in my mind, there were a (potentially) better assumption to be made that since he was an actor, he did not have a copy of it because he had memorized his role so well (hence the very accurate rendering).
@xanderzvc my point exactly
this question tripped me up, couldn't a copy of hamlet also be the script that the actor and cast use to perform it?
fun (somehow helpful) fact!
i'm in an advanced shakespeare course at school, and a guy in my class acts in a some shakespeare play thing that simulates the conditions of how plays were conducted in shakespearean times.
he told us that back in the day, every actor had their own lines, and basically nothing of anything else: no knowledge of other people's casted roles or lines, no dress rehearsals, etc.
this random knowledge allowed me to choose the correct answer choice, so i felt compelled to share. yay!
@yam Ohhh that explains it. When I did a short stint as a theater kid in Middle and High school I memorized my lines and then learned the others lines for cues. If this is actually how it would've been done in the 17th cent that makes more sense 💀
This one might be the most ridiculous question I have encountered so far. I personally picked D off the assumption that an actor in a play would have at least read the source material of the play they are in. I also felt that it was a reasonable assumption that a spectator or "fan" of Hamlet could be particularly interested in a character or speech in the play and that could explain why the speech was very accurate but the rest of the play is put together rather haphazardly. For the correct answer to rely on outside knowledge of the reality of how expensive and exclusive owning books in the 17th century is seems like a huge stretch.
Iffy question, because it's assumption of answer (c) vs assumption (d). I got it right originally, and then got it wrong in blind review because I said to myself "if we're making assumptions, how could an actor NOT have a copy of Hamlet? vs spectator just be a fanatic about a character's role?" It's really funny how watching the video, the explanation actually touched on this question. If you were frustrated with this question, welcome to the club :)
C got me because i thought "how on earth could a person in a play not have a copy of said play"?
it is just as possible that the actor did have a copy of hamlet as a spectator was obsessed with a certain actor... the only way to choose this answer is with outside knowledge of 17th century printing habits, which goes against everything we have learned about outside knowledge? idk this one seems like a stretch to me
@LiviaLSAT I was so-so on that part, what made it click for me was the only accurate rendering of a single character, made think right away of an actor.
@LiviaLSAT Yea, I forgot that it was set in the 17th century when looking at the answer choices. Makes more sense now when I think about it that way.
this shit must be in my head cause i was doing awful on the other RRE questions and did well on this one even though it supposedly uses the same logic?
An actor who has played a role in Hamlet doesn't have a copy of the play they were in?
@woffutt In shakespear's time, actors were not actually given a full script. That being said, the first line of both choices can't be assumed.
Actors: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We can only say they receive their parts for sure.)
Spectator: Can we say they own or don't own the play? (No. We all know people who have seen Harry Potter, but not read a single word of the book.)
So, we have to go on the second statement and fact.
Can a spectator replicate one characters lines perfectly? (or speech?) Maybe. Like Prozd on Peter Pan. BUT maybe not.
How about actors: Well, almost most definitely (still an assumption, but not a stretch) they know their own part quite well. Do they know the others? Maybe, but maybe not. BUT they know at least their own.
So, if you are between C and D. Considering the first line is an assumption on both (And if you are a literature historian, not even that), then the second line would b the determining spot. (At least this was how I took it.)
@DNAlex Thank you! This completely cleared it up for me.
@woffutt
I’m happy to hear that!
How is an actor that played hamlet not supposed to have a copy of Hamlet?
Honestly i just looked at the second piece of evidence to choose actor instead of spectator. Second piece leans way more towards actor than spectator: an actor would be able to render a speech much clearer if it's their own speech (rehearsed and memorized) compared to a spectator (merely observed the speech).
@MelanieGonzalez This is a most supported question, not must be true. So the one that most supports it doesn't actually have to do a good job supporting it, just better than the other options
@MelanieGonzalez When I look back on it (I got it wrong too for the same reasoning), the actor only received lines for their role, not the entire play. This is why they were able to recite 1 characters lines but not the rest completely.
@TylerMadani021
1: This actor is not mentioned in another play. Other plays are not mentioned. Similarly: what reason do we have to believe that a firefighter in the adjacent town owns a copy. We don't. Its Reasonable to assume that the person with these traits would be an actor not a firefighter.
@SMRegalado Yes but remember our goal is most strongly supported. Actor is vague they could be a child who acts in Bollywood for all we know, why would they own a copy of hamlet, but actor in Hamlet is quite specific and fits perfectly.
Probably one of the most fun questions I've seen on this test. Its like playing detective.
I had C initially, but I figured, if he was an actor, why would he NOT have a copy of the play????
If it's unreasonable to assume that a spectator cannot remeber a speech (one speech), then it's unreasonable to assume an actor does not have a copy of the play. Between C and D there are two competing unreasonable assumptions.
Also, no offense, but how the fuck am I supposed to recognize that the printing press was not invented in the 17th century.
@CMas THISSSSS!
@CMas 100%. Gut said C at first but then I went between C and D because I started thinking about these exact assumptions.
Yeah this one stumped me a bit, I am confused by the reasonable assumption that we cannot assume that an actor would have access to a copy of Hamlet. The 17th century is known for when the printing press exploded in popularity. And, this was also when it was popularized in more common uses, so I feel it would be reasonable to assume access to same, especially studying for the role.
Nonetheless, I still see how C is the better answer here ultimately than D, but it feels like two competing assumptions, one that an actor does not have access, and the other that a spectator did not just hone in on a single performance during the play. Argh, missed this one ultimately, oh well.
A reasonable assumption would be that an actor would have a copy of hamlet.
@SMRegalado But are they an actor in Hamlet? I would say its reasonable to assume that an actor who has partaken in the play in question, owns a copy. However, what reason do we have to believe that an actor in say Twelfth Night, also owns a copy of Hamlet.
I used the spectrum of support and assumptions to narrow down between C and D. Once I had those two, C made less and more reasonable assumptions, so I picked it.
after getting demolished with RRE, getting this correct is the confidence boost i needed
This one felt too good to be true in terms of the explanation compared to the others. I got it right so won't say much.