achanak wrote:
IanStewart wrote:
rpmodi wrote:
A medieval manuscript called L contains all eighteen extant tragedies
by the Greek playwright Euripides. Of these, ten called the “select
plays,” are accompanied in L by ancient commentaries and also
appear in other medieval manuscripts; this group includes some of
Euripides’ best-known works, including the Medea. The other eight,
which appear in alphabetical order, without commentary. The Electra is
one of the alphabeticals.
Which of the following can be reliably concluded on the basis of the
Statements given?
A. Only Euripides’ best-known works are accompanied by ancient
commentaries in extant medieval manuscripts.
B. The select plays are accompanied by ancient commentaries
because they were the best known of Euripides’ works.
C. No commentaries were written about Euripides’ Electra in
ancient times.
D. Euripides’ Medea never appears in medieval manuscripts
unaccompanied by ancient commentary.
E. Euripides’ Electra does not appear accompanied by a commentary
in any extant medieval manuscript.
First, there's nothing to suggest that the 'alphabeticals' do not also include some of Euripedes' best-known works. For all we know from the question, Electra might be the best known of Euripedes' plays. The 'select plays' only include "
some of Euripides’ best-known works". A and B are out.
We only know that the 'select plays' have commentaries in manuscript L, so D is out.
C is a much stronger version of E. If C were true, E would be true as well, and the question cannot have two different answers which are both correct. By elimination, E ought to be correct.
Still, there's a logical flaw with this answer. The question tells us that the 'select plays' "are accompanied in L by ancient commentaries and also appear in other medieval manuscripts". The intended implication is that the alphabeticals, including Electra, neither have commentary in L, nor appear in other manuscripts- and thus do not appear with commentary in any manuscript. Logically, that's problematic. The 'select plays' are defined by two conditions: they appear in other manuscripts and have commentary in L. The 'alphabeticals' logically cannot satisfy both of these conditions; otherwise we'd call them 'select plays'. This does not mean that the alphabeticals do not satisfy one or the other of the two conditions. We know they do not have commentary in L, but that does not prevent them from appearing in other manuscripts, and perhaps having commentary in other manuscripts.
Either the question-designer messed this one up, or there was something in the original wording to better convey the intended meaning of the question. I would want to see the original wording here; "The other eight, which appear in alphabetical order, without commentary." is not a sentence.
Encountered this question on a recent Official practice exam and it appears to have been rephrased:
A medieval manuscript called L contains all eighteen extant tragedies by the Greek playwright Euripides. Of these, ten called the “select plays,” are accompanied in L by ancient commentaries and also appear in other medieval manuscripts; this group includes some of Euripides's best-known works, including the Medea. The other eight, which
appear only in L, are called the “alphabeticals” because they appear in alphabetical order, without commentary. The Electra is one of the alphabeticals.
Still it does not feel compelling enough to trump C as the answer and my reasoning is as follows:
The argument as to why C is incorrect is because it is too broad - it incorporates all of ancient times, when there could have been commentaries in other ancient manuscripts or documentation - we don't know.
But isn't E broad as well? In the sense that from the stimulus,
Electra appears ONLY in L, and that too without commentaries. But E broadens its scope to
any extant medieval manuscript which is to say it incorporates "any existing manuscript (ancient or recent) apart from L". What is the difference?
Thanks in advance
My explanation for C and E. Hope it helps.
Quote:
C. No commentaries were written about Euripides’ Electra in ancient times.
What do we know about Euripides’ Electra from the argument? (The Electra is one of the alphabetical)
- appears
only in L,
- Electra appears in alphabetical order,
- Electra is without commentary.
Note: ONLY is a very STRONG word.
Compare argument vs C option.
Ancient Times? - We only know about Medieval times.
On what basis , can you say it didn't appear in ancient times?
I have no information to assert this claim, so how can I conclude such imaginary statement.
Quote:
E. Euripides’ Electra does not appear accompanied by a commentary in any extant medieval manuscript.
Ah! medieval manuscript- something we are taking about. Yes it is in scope.
compare E vs argument.
does not appear accompanied by a commentary--> YEs I can say this, because it is given:
Electra is without commentary. does not appear in any medieval manuscript-->
appears only in L,. 'Only' signifies that it didn't appear in any other medieval manuscript. So I can assert this claim as well.
What about extant ? Extant is adjective to medieval. medieval = extant types + non extant types. I have been given information whole set that it only appears in L. Outside L is any other for me. I don't care whether others were extant or non-extant.
So I don't have any more question to challenge this option.
So between C and E. C is doubtful and E can be directly concluded from the information given.
So E is the right answer .
close
12 Mar 2021, 21:06
