LR question - King Henry VI & coin: PT 24.S3.Q9 Forum

[ComatoseClown]

PT 24.S3.Q9

Can someone explain why B is wrong? If another coin was minted in 1422 and was mentioned in the play, couldn't the play then have been written in for instance 1423, which is BEFORE 1431, hence weakening the argument?

Secondly with E, the correct answer: so what if a merchant SAW the design -- this doesn't mean the merchant and his finding/letter was written with any association TO the play. Answer choice B on the other hand has a direct association WITH the play itself.

Curious to any of your thoughts.

[Bobeo]

B only provides evidence that the play was written after 1422. This is consistent with the evidence from the passage saying that it was written between 1431 and 1471.

If there is evidence that the coin was known of (much discussed) before 1431, as in E, then we have evidence that the play could have been written before 1431, hence weakening the passage.

Sorry if that is a bit convulted.

[glucose101]

B-Just because "another coin" was minted earlier doesn't necessarily mean that the play has to start at that date; it could have been in circulation already.

E-If the coin was being designed in 1428, it means that it hasn't been created/circulated yet, so this is the earliest it could have been released (before 1431).