Narrator: Now listen to part of a lecture on the topic you just read about.
Professor: People who say that somebody else actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays… that’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory. It’s an interesting idea, but there’s no evidence to back it up. Why couldn’t Shakespeare have written them himself? A lot of people were illiterate during the sixteenth century, but Shakespeare probably did get a good education. The house where he grew up was only half a mile from a free public school. At the time, the curriculum taught Latin, philosophy… all sorts of things that Shakespeare wrote about. An intelligent young man, like Shakespeare supposedly was, could have picked up everything he needed just by reading widely and talking with people.
It’s true that there’s no proof that he went to the school, but that’s just because we don’t have a list of students at all, so we don’t know anything about the students who went there. A lot of documents from that era either are missing or weren’t created in the first place.
Besides, if Shakespeare didn’t write his own plays, who did? Sir Francis Bacon is the best candidate, but it just doesn’t make sense that he was the writer. Bacon was a terrible poet. There’s a reason he wasn’t known for his poetry! It isn’t that he didn’t write any, he just didn’t have any talent for it, unlike his talents for philosophy or law. Whoever wrote Shakespeare’s plays was one of the greatest poets to ever live. Bacon, well… he definitely wasn’t that. Plus, why would Bacon want to hide his identity? You’d have to believe in some kind of complicated conspiracy theory. Of course, plenty of people have thought of these conspiracy theories, but none of them make more sense than the obvious explanation—that Shakespeare actually did write his own plays.
The lecturer disagrees with the passage’s claim that Shakespeare did not write his own plays. The passage says that there is evidence that Shakespeare’s family was illiterate, as was the case for many people in that time. In addition, according to the passage, there is no proof that Shakespeare received an education. The lecturer argues that there was near Shakespeare’s residence a free public school where he could have received an education. The school taught subjects that Shakespeare wrote about, and the lecturer argues that Shakespeare was intelligent enough to learn what he needed by reading and talking to people. Also, there was no records of who attended school and who did not, so there was no proof for anyone. In other words, the “no proof” argument does not serve as proof of Shakespeare’s lack of formal education.
The lecturer also refutes the argument that Sir Francis Bacon actually was the one that wrote Shakespeare’s plays. The passage claims that Sir Francis Bacon was an intellectual and his style matched the content that was in Shakespeare’s plays. However, the lecturer says Bacon actually was a terrible poet. He did write poetry under his own name, but he was not known for writign good poetry. The lecturer also doubts why Bacon would have wanted to hide his idenity. Shakespeare was very popular, so Bacon would be presumed to have wanted to claim credit.
The student clearly summarizes the main points made by the lecturer to refute the arguments in the passage. In particular, he does a good job of explaining why the “no proof of school” argument is a bad argument. He has a few grammar errors and typos, but overall, his response is still clear and easy to understand.