Self-study
Drama critic: There were many interesting plays written last year. ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ █ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █ ████████████ ████████ ████
Summary
The author concludes that none of the many interesting plays written last year will be popular several centuries from now.
Why? Because of the following:
In order for a play to be performed regularly over many decades and centuries, it must skillfully explore human nature.
The plays written last year (including the interesting ones) do not skillfully explore human nature.
Notable Assumptions
Notice that the conclusion bring up a new concept — not being popular several centuries from now. The premises don’t say anything about what will be unpopular several centuries from now, so we know the author must assume something about this concept.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection to get from the premises to the conclusion. We know from the premises that the interesting plays written last year won’t be performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries (because they don’t examine human nature in a particularly skillful way). The author assumes that if the plays aren’t performed regularly over the coming decades and centuries, then they won’t be popular several centuries from now. Or, in other words, in order to be popular several centuries from now, they must be performed regularly.
14.
The argument relies on assuming █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
No play will ██ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████████ █████
This is the necessary link between the premises and the conclusion. If this were not true — if plays could be popular centuries from now even if they weren’t regularly performed — then the premises wouldn’t prove that the plays won’t be popular centuries from now.
b
For a play ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █ ███ ██████
The author’s reasoning has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The author mentioned critical acclaim in the beginning, but that was simply part of context and plays no role in the premise to conclusion structure of the author’s argument.
c
There were no █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████
Not necessary, because the critic doesn’t have to have seen or read all the plays. We know as a premise that none of the plays written last year examine human nature in a skillful way. The critic doesn’t need to have seen or read all plays in order for that premise to be true.
d
If a play ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████████
The author’s reasoning has nothing to do with critical acclaim. The author mentioned critical acclaim in the beginning, but that was simply part of context and plays no role in the premise to conclusion structure of the author’s argument.
e
Any play that ██████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████
The author’s argument concerns plays that do NOT skillfully examine human nature and what will happen to them. So the author doesn’t need to assume anything about what will happen to plays that DO skillfully examine human nature.