Critic: The recent biography of Shakespeare does not explain what is of most interest about him. It is by an expert on the history of Elizabethan England, and so does a good job of showing what life would have been like for Shakespeare as a man of that time. But it does not explain what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries. The conclusion of the argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed? ['The life of the average man in Elizabethan England is uninteresting.', 'There is no way to know what made Shakespeare different from his contemporaries.', 'What is most interesting about Shakespeare is what made him different from his contemporaries.', 'Shakespeare was very different from the other men of his time.']