<p>The author assumed tht since Shakespeare could not have had tht knowledge (since he was not frm aristocratic background) the only logical explanation was tht the other one was the actual writer.</p>
<p>And also there was another example right at the end of the passage and I don’t think tht example had anything to do with court life</p>
<p>@flibb I think the resources u are talking about was in passage 2.</p>
<p>We would only find out if someone actually knew the Q number and the section.</p>
<p>@Numen Finder: SAS does show answers, but how will we know which question it was in the first place?</p>
<p>Okay, I know this is SO very un-related. I had a good laugh though. Its where the word ‘sheaky’ originated from. Hope you enjoy it, and hope that it makes things on this thread a bit easier. This is NOT related to the SAT :D</p>
<p>Features Hugh Laurie (from House MD) and Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bean)</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - Shakespeare sketch](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4)</p>
<p>@thisbetterworks:" amen to that"
tht was for Numen Finder, wasn’t it? :)</p>
<p>@AnonAnnay :
yes, the answer should be the counter arguement for shaky can’t be a straford farmer.</p>
<p>crap about war, court life, law, etc. These are all in aristocratic back ground.</p>
<p>If there are many novels with aristocratic back ground:
1 Straford Shaky can read from them.
2 the scholar can’t narrow it down to Edward De vere, because there is too many.</p>
<p>ccprofile your point does not weaken my argument.</p>
<p>does the statement most playwrights are from aristocratic backgrounds have to absolutely include Sheaky? No because it said most. And the passage itself established that he’s a farmer schmuck.</p>
<p>Annon, thats what ive been trying to say for about 2 days!</p>
<p>@AnonAnnay :
yes, the answer should be the counter arguement for shaky can’t be a straford farmer.</p>
<p>crap about war, court life, law, etc. These are all in aristocratic back ground.</p>
<p>If there are many novels with aristocratic back ground:
1 Straford Shaky can read from them.
2 the scholar can’t narrow it down to Edward De vere, because there is too many.</p>
<p>I think I have to restate this, seems like that nobody sees.</p>
<p>and How do you say about the partiality of the “court life”?</p>
<p>“does the statement most playwrights are from aristocratic backgrounds have to absolutely include Sheaky? No because it said most. And the passage itself established that he’s a farmer schmuck.”------AnonAnnay</p>
<p>The passage says that he is NOT a farmer schmck. </p>
<p>"he’s a farmer schmuck. " is P2</p>
<p>@ Numen</p>
<p>"also you make the assumption that all aristocrats are educated in the wide range of things Shakespeare had to know, but the passage never mentions anything about the education of aristocrats during this time period. you are making an assumption that was never mentioned in either passages</p>
<p>how the heck is the “most playwrights are aristocratic” logically relevant? We’re focused on Shaky alone. the only way that could be right is if it said “absolutely all playwrights from this time period are all aristocratic.” I mean the passage itself establishes that he was some farmer schmuck. Maybe those other aristocratic playwrights visited this farmer to teach him about everything he’s suppose to know?"</p>
<p>your point 1 strengthens my argument.
your point 2 makes assumptions not justified in either passage. you’re basically saying that Edward De Vere was the only learned English man during Shaky’s time period.</p>
<p>Partiality of court life among the other aspects of war, law, etc doesn’t matter. The question is asking for the strongest answer.</p>
<p>This is simply logic. Let’s say that most means 75% of the population. So 75% of the playwrights were aristocratic. whoopee. Is there a chance that Shaky was part of the non aristocratic 25%? yes. And what’s even more interesting is that the passage itself mentions that he’s a farmer schmuck, so even with that answer statement the chances of Shaky being an aristocrat just went down to 0. Also try reading the first paragraph of this post again.</p>
<p>In paragraph 2 the author actually does mention tht u wud have to be frm aristocratic background to know about those stuff</p>
<p>Why does the scholar say those lines?</p>
<p>The right logic is to wholly refute the idea of quoted sentece.</p>
<p>To work out a perfect answer, we should first figure out what the main idea of quoted sentences is.</p>
<p>CB will never give answers that is PARTIAL.
I am absolutely sure about this point, at least, now.</p>
<p>The one that is strongest, should basically be comprehensive, not partial.</p>
<p>@AnonAnnay:Numen finder’s point 1 actually strengthens our argument.
The author rules out tht Sheaky (sorry Shakepeare) was not frm aristocratic background
and tht he cud not have read about those stuff frm books coz not many writers at tht time knew about those stuff.</p>
<p>this question has to be the most debated question in this thread.</p>
<p>Might it be Level 5??
Huh??
Everybody holds his or her opinion firmly.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember any other questions from the CR?</p>
<p>@Numen Finder: I am also ABSOLUTELY sure that CB would not give a question that would not simply say MOST authors had aristo backgrounds, and then imply that sheaky WAS part of MOST of these.</p>
<p>@Numen&CC</p>
<p>I was able to see what you guys are saying since the start, it’s just that the answer choice introduces a chance that it will not counter passage 1 because there is a chance that Shaky is not part of the aristocratic group it states. Just my point of view.</p>
<p>CC I think we covered most of them in this thread. Well at least the significant ones</p>
<p>Come on can we just stop calling shakespeare sheaky? It’s just so weird.</p>