Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian author Kirsten

C.

If somebody had explained the plot to Mikkeli before he wrote the book, then his defense will collapse.

Mikkeli's defense: Plagiarism was impossible in this case. Why?

1. Halden's book has been published only in Norwegian, a language Mikkeli does not understand.
2. No reviews of Halden's book have ever been published. So Mikkeli does not even know that such a book exists.

Mikkeli thinks she listed all the reasons why the plagiarism was impossible. But if we can find any other possible reason which will lead us to believe that Plagiarism was indeed a possibility, then we can use that as an assumption because that would be the gap/weak link in the argument.




Even if Mikkeli has never met Halden there is a possibility that Mikkeli knew about the plot if Halden's book from some other source.


Probably Halden's book got popular in some other country where Mikkeli got to read the book.


This option says that nobody talked about/revealed the plot of Halden's book(probably unintentionally) to Mikkeli even before she ever started to write her own book and so there is no chance of Plagiarism.


Probably there is such a common European myth. But that would not explain why the plot is same?


Does not matter. Totally out of scope.

For an answer choice to be an assumption:

Negation MUST shatter the conclusion DIRECTLY, not after further MANY MORE assumptions in hindsight.

That's what E is doing:
(E) Mikkeli is not familiar with OI ( Old Icelandic ), an extinct language related to an earlier form of Norwegian.

!E = Mikkeli is familiar with Old Icelandic( Old Icelandic ), an extinct language related to an earlier form of Norwegian.
It CAN play the role of a Defender-Strengthener.

However, Even after Mikkeli's familiarity with OI, We CANNOT be certain that OI is relatable with the ACTUAL text format of Halden's book.

- Might be the language in the earlier form of Norwegian is FAR different from that used in the ACTUAL text format of the Halden's book.
Thus, Further assumption is required that OI is relatable with the ACTUAL text format of Halden's book.

We CAN safely discard E.

Finnish author Jaakko Mikkeli was accused by Norwegian author Kirsten Halden of plagiarizing a book that she had written and that had been published 20 years before Mikkeli's. The two books, although set in different periods and regions, contain enough plot similarities to make coincidental resemblance unlikely. Mikkeli's defense rests on his argument that plagiarism was impossible in this case because Halden's book has been published only in Norwegian, a language Mikkeli does not understand, and because no reviews of Halden's book have ever been published.

The argument in Mikkeli's defense depends on the assumption that

(A) Mikkeli has never met Halden - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(B) Halden's book did not become popular in Norway - WRONG. Popularity is not the question, whether Mikkeli understood it or not is the quesiton.
C) nobody related the plot of Halden's book in detail to Mikkeli before Mikkeli wrote his book - CORRECT. If there was one than Mikkeli's claim is questionable.
(D) there is a common European myth to which both authors referred subconsciously in the books in question - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(E) Mikkeli is not familiar with Old lcelandic, an extinct language related to an earlier form of Norwegian - WRONG. 2nd best but Mikkeli already said that he doesn't understand Norwegian so earlier form that is extinct in altogether is not a possibility.

Answer C.