A question about how findings in one text bear on another text’s argument tests whether you can connect evidence to a claim. Start with the question to see which text gives the evidence and which gives the claim. Then read the argument for what evidence would count and any limits the author sets. Test both the claim and its limits against the findings, asking whether they show the expected pattern and how widely it applies. Wrong choices can stretch the findings beyond what the argument allows.
Hints
- Hint 1
Look for Bell’s conditions for treating placement as commentary in her sentence beginning “If a motif.”
- Hint 2
Compare the fox’s placement with Bell’s conditions. Pay attention to both the workshops and the themes of the nearby passages.
- Hint 3
What does Bell’s final sentence warn against, and how do the bird and vine findings bear on that warning?
Step-by-step
Test the findings against Bell’s claim
Step 1Find the pattern and the limit
Bell’s sentence beginning If a motif appears disproportionately tells us what Text 2’s findings must test. What would count as evidence of commentary? A motif’s placement may suggest commentary if it appears unusually often beside passages on one theme across different workshops. Her caution that evidence about one motif does not establish the purpose of marginal imagery in general makes this a claim about particular motifs, not all marginal imagery.
- Step 2
Test the fox’s placement
Does the fox show that pattern? It appears in nine copies from four workshops, so the pattern occurs in work from several workshops rather than one. Text 2 adds that 15 of its 17 appearances were beside passages condemning dishonest trade, which ties nearly all the fox’s locations to one theme. The fox appears in only nine of 28 copies, but Bell’s test asks where the motif appears, not whether most copies contain it, so these numbers offer evidence of commentary.
- Step 3
Check how far the findings reach
Birds and vines showed no consistent relation to the subjects of nearby passages, even though they were more common overall. Being more common doesn’t show the theme-linked placement Bell describes, so the findings don’t support reading all marginal imagery as commentary. The choice that says the findings support Bell’s limited argument treats the fox as evidence of commentary without saying the same is true of birds and vines. Choice B.