A question about two texts tests how one text’s evidence affects a view in the other. Start with the question so you know which text responds to the other, then put each text’s claim and reason in a few words. If you’re asked to qualify a view, find what the responding text accepts and where it sets a limit. Check the reason for that limit against the evidence. Wrong choices often add certainty that the text doesn’t give.
Hints
- Hint 1
Look at Text 1’s claim about spelling patterns. Ask what those patterns are supposed to reveal.
- Hint 2
What happens to a scribe’s spelling patterns across workshops, and what happens to different scribes’ patterns within one workshop?
- Hint 3
Read the last sentence for the limits on identifying scribes. How much success does it claim, and how are the rare variants used?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim with the findings
Step 1Pin down the claim about scribes
Text 1 calls a distinctive spelling combination a reliable “scribal fingerprint,” even when handwriting looks alike. What view are the Text 2 researchers being asked to qualify? It’s that spelling combinations reliably identify individual scribes, because spelling wasn’t standardized and distinctive patterns can serve as clues to who copied a manuscript.
- Step 2
See what the workshop changes
Why might a spelling pattern point to a workshop rather than a person? Text 2 finds that a scribe’s patterns often shifted markedly between workshops, while different scribes in the same workshop tended to converge. So one person can change spellings, and several people can use similar spellings because they share a workshop. The workshop can shape the supposed fingerprint.
- Step 3
Find what still identifies scribes
Does that make the method useless? No: Text 2 says rare spelling variants sometimes remained stable across settings and could identify certain scribes when several such variants were considered together. That supports qualifying the broad claim by limiting it to some cases, rather than rejecting the method. The researchers don’t promise success for every scribe, and their evidence uses several rare variants together.
- Step 4
Check the reason for the limit
Which choice gives the researchers’ own reason for limiting the method? A preference for individual rare variants isn’t supported, because the researchers used several together. The choice about distinguishing variants instead ties reliability to where the spelling pattern comes from, so it separates lasting individual habits from shared workshop practices. Choice D.