Question 22·Easy·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In the ruins of the ancient port city of Ostia, scholars have catalogued hundreds of wall inscriptions. Among the most common images are small sketches of single–masted ships. Because these drawings appear not only near the docks but also in marketplaces and homes, some researchers have concluded that a large portion of Ostia’s residents earned their living as sailors.
Text 2
Cultural historian Mara Conti warns against taking every Ostian ship sketch at face value. In her view, wall drawings were a form of playful communication that mixed literal observation with symbolism. Conti notes that ships were frequently invoked in Roman poetry as metaphors for hope, risk, or life’s journey, and she argues that many graffiti artists likely used the image in the same figurative way.
Based on the texts, what would Conti (Text 2) most likely say about the interpretation presented in the bolded portion of Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, first isolate the key claim in the referenced part of Text 1 (here, the bolded conclusion about many residents being sailors). Then summarize Text 2’s main point and attitude—look for signal words like “warns against,” “argues,” or “however” to see whether the second author agrees, disagrees, or qualifies that claim. Finally, choose the option that best captures how the second author would respond, and quickly eliminate choices that add new, unsupported details or contradict the second author’s clearly stated view.
Hints
Understand the claim in Text 1
Reread the bolded sentence in Text 1. What specific conclusion are the researchers drawing from the fact that ship drawings appear in homes and marketplaces?
Focus on Conti’s warning
Look closely at the phrases in Text 2: “warns against taking every Ostian ship sketch at face value” and “mixed literal observation with symbolism.” What does this suggest about how Conti thinks the drawings should be interpreted?
Think about how Conti would respond
If Conti were talking directly to those researchers in Text 1, would she fully agree with their conclusion, fully disagree, or qualify it? What part of their reasoning would she be most likely to question?
Check each choice against Text 2
Eliminate any option that introduces ideas Conti never mentions (like who the artists were or what specific goods were traded), or that contradicts her view that graffiti mixed literal and symbolic meanings.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what Text 1 is claiming in the bolded portion
Focus on the bolded sentence in Text 1: researchers see ship sketches in many places and conclude that many residents earned their living as sailors. That means they are treating each ship drawing as if it literally represents someone’s real-life occupation.
Summarize Conti’s main idea in Text 2
Now look at Text 2. Conti:
- “warns against taking every Ostian ship sketch at face value,” and
- says wall drawings “mixed literal observation with symbolism.” She also notes that in Roman poetry, ships are often metaphors for hope, risk, or life’s journey, and argues that graffiti artists likely used the image figuratively in a similar way. So Conti thinks many ship images are symbolic, not strictly literal.
Connect Conti’s view to the bolded claim in Text 1
Ask: If Conti responded to those researchers from Text 1, what would she say?
- The researchers are using the ship drawings as literal evidence about people’s jobs.
- Conti’s whole point is that such drawings often have symbolic or metaphorical meanings. So she would criticize the researchers’ method: their conclusion about professions ignores that the images might not show actual sailors but instead stand for abstract ideas.
Match that criticism to the answer choices
Now test each option against Conti’s view:
- One choice says that using ship imagery to infer residents’ professions fails to consider that the drawings could be symbolic expressions, which directly matches her warning about symbolism and metaphor.
- The other choices talk about commercial goods, outsider artists, or wall drawings being strictly documentary—all ideas that Conti never states and, in one case, clearly contradicts.
Correct answer: Inferring the professions of Ostians from ship imagery overlooks the possibility that the drawings were meant as symbolic expressions.