notwithstanding wrote:
The Testament of William Thorpe was published around 1530 as an appendix to Thorpe's longer Examination. Many scholars, however, doubt the attribution of the Testament to Thorpe because, whereas the Examination is dated 1406, the Testament is dated 1460. One scholar has recently argued that the 1460 date be amended to 1409, based on the observation that when these numbers are expressed as Roman numerals, MCCCCLX and MCCCCIX, it becomes easy to see how the dates might have become confused through scribal error.
Which of the following, if true, would most support the scholar's hypothesis concerning the date of the Testament?
(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament.
(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe.
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.
(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460.
(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406.
1406 and 1460 are many many years apart. It seems unlikely that someone writing the Examination in 1406 would add an addendum to it in 1460 (54 years later). Such a long productive lifespan is improbable, especially in those times. So scholars believe that Thorpe did not write Testament.
One scholar believes that Thorpe could have written it though in 1409. The dates might have become confused through scribal error because they are similar.
What would strengthen the theory of date error?
(A) The sole evidence that historians have had that William Thorpe died no earlier than 1460 was the presumed date of publication of the Testament.
There is no other evidence that Thorpe lived till 1460. A lack of found evidence doesn't mean there isn't any to be found and for that matter, lack of evidence doesn't mean it did not happen.
All this tells us that nothing else corroborates that he lived till 1960. Does it mean he did not live till 1960? No. He may or may not have.
In any case, let's look for a better option.
Sneha2021(B) In the preface to the 1530 publication, the editor attributes both works to William Thorpe.
Irrelevant. We need to know what actually happened. What the editor did in 1530 doesn't matter.
(C) Few writers in fifteenth-century England marked dates in their works using only Roman numerals.
Irrelevant. The debate exists because there is no clarity on date.
(D) The Testament alludes to a date, "Friday, September 20," as apparently contemporaneous with the writing of the Testament, and September 20 fell on a Friday in 1409 but not in 1460.
Correct. The date "Friday, September 20" seems to be contemporaneous with the writing (at the same time as the writing). This holds in 1409 but not in 1460. Then it does seem that the author wanted to say 1409 all along and the whole 1460 thing is just an error.
(E) The Testament contains few references to historical events that occurred later than 1406.
Doesn't matter. A writing could certainly refer to events in the past only. It doesn't need to refer to current events. Option (D) makes a lot more sense.
Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep