You would expect high school literature students who study the works of Shakespeare, the greatest of playwrights, to come away enriched and appreciative. In actuality, however, the study of his works more closely resembles psychological punishment for students who must translate the archaic English into understandable form.
The end result is legions of people who sadly end up avoiding Shakespeare's works throughout their lives. It's time that high schools remove Shakespeare's works from their literature classes, though performing arts classes may choose to perform them. Those who desire can confront the difficult Shakespeare challenge on their own, while their school time is appropriately dedicated to less complicated authors.
What aspect of this conclusion limits the overall success of the argument?
A. It is based on the flawed premise that difficult things should not be studied and fails to suggest other potential alternatives.
B. It doesn't mention other major authors that could replace Shakespeare, which leaves readers with a critically flawed argument.
C. It suggests others may want to study Shakespeare and thus refutes the earlier points made about Shakespeare's complexity.
C. It suggests others may want to study Shakespeare and thus refutes the earlier points made about Shakespeare's complexity.
This aspect of the conclusion weakens the overall argument because it acknowledges that there are individuals who may still desire to study Shakespeare, even with its complexity. This contradicts the overall argument that Shakespeare's works should be removed from high school literature classes due to their difficulty. It implies that there may still be value in studying Shakespeare, even if it is challenging, which undermines the reasoning for removing his works from the curriculum.