Question #bfd20
1 Answer
I vote for B. See below for more:
Explanation:
I think it depends on whether you want to argue that he wrote or didn't write the plays.
If you are arguing he didn't write the plays, the statement that most supports that is B - there are no drafts in his handwriting. This certainly isn't a slam-dunk piece of evidence - there are plenty of artists who have only wanted their finished work to be displayed and so have destroyed their studies and drafts. The statement you'll have to argue against is D - that when he retired, he bought the biggest house in Stratford - who in their right mind would give up the wealth that Shakespeare clearly accumulated?
If you are arguing that he did write the plays, then the two statements will reverse - the best argument is that he had all that wealth but the largest obstacle to that argument is that there are no drafts in his handwriting.
Of the two positions, I think the lack of drafts is the strongest of the statements and so would either be your strongest evidence (for not writing) or largest critique (for writing).
