PTA.S1.Q16

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

The author argues that Giordano Bruno was a spy for England while he was serving in the French embassy in London. This is based on English state records stating that there was a spy at the embassy who was "the only clergyman" working there. Since Bruno had been ordained a member of the clergy before he started work there, the author concludes that Bruno was the spy.

The author makes a pretty big assumption in stating that since Bruno had been ordained "long before" starting work at the embassy, he must be the clergyman referred to in the English state documents. We don't know if Bruno was still working as a clergyman, even if he had once been ordained, and the author hasn't shown us that no other clergymen were working at the Embassy at the time.

So if we knew that Bruno was no longer a clergyman, or if there was another, perhaps more prominent, clergyman working at the embassy at the same time as Bruno (suggesting that the authors of the English state documents were mistaken, did not know about Bruno's ordination, or did not refer to Bruno a clergyman for some other reason), either of these facts would strongly weaken the author's argument.

Similarly, if we knew that Bruno was still working as a clergyman, or that there was no one else working at the French embassy at the time who had ever been ordained, either of these facts would strengthen the author's argument.