Is there something missing from the stimulus? The second last sentence is only a sentence fragment, and NONE of the answer choices follows reliably (i.e., necessarily) from the stimulus.
A: Not necessarily true. The stimulus tells us that the select plays (which include SOME of E's best known works) are accompanied by ancient commentaries in L. It tells us nothing about what is or is not accompanied by commentaries in other manuscripts. Not only that, but it leaves open the possibility that some of the "select plays" are NOT among E's best known works, in which case A would be false.
B: There is no information at all indicating WHY the select plays were accompanied by commentaries in L, or anywhere else -- IF they were so accompanied in other manuscripts.
C: The stimulus shows that there are no commentaries about Elektra in L. This does not tell us anything about whether there are or are not commentaries about Elektra in any other mediaeval manuscripts. Even if there were not, it would still be possible that there were ancient commentaries written about Elektra which did NOT happen to be captured in any of the mediaeval manuscripts which have survived.
D: The stimulus shows that Medea is accompanied by commentary in L. This does NOT prove that every other mediaeval manuscript which contains Medea also contains an ancient commentary about Medea.
E: Partly the same analysis as C: The stimulus shows that there are no commentaries about Elektra in L. This does NOT prove that there are no commentaries about Elektra in any OTHER mediaeval manuscript.
Please check the original stimulus: If one of these answers follows logically, there must be more in it than has been posted.
Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor