A medieval manuscript called L contains all eighteen extant tragedies by the Greek playwright Euripides. Of these, ten called the “select plays,” are accompanied in L by ancient commentaries and also appear in other medieval manuscripts; this group includes some of Euripides’ best-known works, including the Medea. The other eight, which appear in alphabetical order, without commentary. The Electra is one of the alphabeticals.
Okay, so what do we know? We know there's a manuscript called L that has all 18 of Euripides extant tragedies. 10 of these also include ancient commentaries and appear in other medieval manuscripts (one of these 10 is the Medea). The other 8 have no commentary, and the Electra is one of the other 8.
Which of the following can be reliably concluded on the basis of the
statements given? [This question is pretty much a "must be true," or as close as you can get to must-be-true]
A. Only Euripides’ best-known works are accompanied by ancient
commentaries in extant medieval manuscripts.
That's not true. We only know that in the case of L, some of Euripedes best known works have ancient commentaries. There could be other extant medieval manuscripts that offer commentary on some of Euripides' lesser known works. Eliminate.
B. The select plays are accompanied by ancient commentaries
because they were the best known of Euripides’ works.
Wrong, and also nonsensical. The "best known" of Euripides work TODAY may not have been his best known work in medieval time. The statement gives us no way of judging if they were the best known, they simply have commentary written about them -- it could be that the only people who know about them are the ones who wrote the commentaries! There is nothing to support this statement in the question. Eliminate.
C. No commentaries were written about Euripides’ Electra in
ancient times.
Again, there is no information to support this statement in the question. The statement doesn't attempt to explain WHY some of the works have commentary, beyond noting that the group happens to include some of Euripides best known work. Eliminate.
D. Euripides’ Medea never appears in medieval manuscripts
unaccompanied by ancient commentary.
This is far too strong for a possible conclusion, so we could eliminate on those grounds. Additionally, the passage merely claims that Medea happens to be accompanied by ancient commentary in this manuscript, and that Medea does appear in other manuscripts -- it makes no claim as to whether it appears with or without commentary in other manuscripts. Eliminate.
E. Euripides’ Electra does not appear accompanied by a commentary
in any extant medieval manuscript.
By POE I'm here, but let's try and justify the OA. I don't particularly like this answer but I could see why it would be the OA. We can assume that since Electra is not one of the 10 that appears in the L with commentary, as well as appearing in other manuscripts, that it appears without commentary, and does not appear in other manuscripts.
I don't like this answer much, honestly. I think you could make a reasonable case for eliminating all of the choices. What is the source for this Q?