Passage Summary: A historian dismisses people who doubt Shakespeare wrote his plays by calling them snobs who just want a nobleman to get the credit.

Conclusion: Arguments against Shakespeare's authorship are driven entirely by a sense of social elitism.

Reasoning: Shakespeare was a commoner while the proposed alternatives were aristocrats, and many people making these claims are descendants of those very aristocrats.

Analysis: The historian is guilty of a classic ad hominem attack, focusing on the character and motives of the 'doubters' rather than the substance of their claims. Just because someone might have a biased motive (like family pride or snobbery) doesn't mean their conclusion is automatically false. Look for an answer that points out this failure to address the actual evidence regarding the authorship of the plays. It's much easier to call someone a snob than it is to actually prove they're wrong about history.