Literary Historian: A newly discovered manuscript attributed to the seventeenth-century essayist Clara Vance contains descriptions of a rare solar eclipse that occurred in the autumn of 1682. Historical records confirm that Vance died in the spring of 1680. Therefore, this manuscript could not have been written by Vance.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the literary historian's argument depends?
- ANo other seventeenth-century essayists wrote descriptions of the 1682 solar eclipse.
- BAll seventeenth-century manuscripts describing historical events were written in the exact year those events took place.
- The descriptions of the 1682 solar eclipse were not added to the manuscript by someone else after Vance's death.Answer
- DAnyone who lived past 1682 would have been capable of writing the descriptions of the solar eclipse found in the manuscript.
- EEstablishing that Vance died before 1682 is sufficient to identify the actual author of the manuscript.
Answer
The argument depends on the assumption that the descriptions of the 1682 solar eclipse were not added to the manuscript by someone else after Vance's death.
The historian's conclusion that Vance could not have written the manuscript relies entirely on the premise that the text describes an event from 1682, two years after Vance's death in 1680. For this timeline discrepancy to rule Vance out as the author, the eclipse references must reflect the original composition rather than posthumous alterations. If those descriptions were inserted into Vance's draft by someone else after 1680, the core manuscript could still be her authentic work. Thus, negating this assumption destroys the conclusion, confirming it is strictly necessary.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Necessary Assumption (Defender Assumption)
Estimated Time:1m 0s