Question 96·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In A Radical Rationalist, historian Gregorio Lane contends that Mary Wollstonecraft’s 1792 treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman derives its power almost entirely from Enlightenment logic. According to Lane, Wollstonecraft’s arguments rest on the premise that if men justify political authority through reason, they must extend the same rational consideration to women. Lane claims that the treatise’s tone is "coolly methodical," relying on syllogistic proofs rather than passionate rhetoric, and concludes that its legacy lies in demonstrating how rigorous logic can be wielded in the service of social reform.
Text 2
Philosopher Shirin Okafor disputes the idea that Wollstonecraft’s work is chiefly an exercise in dispassionate reasoning. Okafor notes that Vindication often pivots from deductive arguments to vivid depictions of women’s lived misery, invoking empathy as well as logic. She argues that this fusion of rational critique and moral sentiment not only foreshadows Romantic literature’s emphasis on feeling but also broadens the treatise’s persuasive reach. "Wollstonecraft," Okafor writes, "never asks readers to choose between head and heart; she insists they employ both."
Question
Which statement best describes how Text 2 modifies the perspective on Wollstonecraft’s treatise presented in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, paraphrase each text’s main claim in a short phrase and then label the relationship (agree, disagree, qualify, or extend). Here, Text 2 uses a clear signal verb (“disputes”) and introduces contrasting evidence (empathy and moral sentiment), so choose the option that captures that Text 2 challenges Text 1’s near-exclusive emphasis on logic without flipping to an “all emotion” extreme.
Hints
Track the key descriptors in each text
In Text 1, note phrases about method and tone (logic, syllogisms, “coolly methodical”). In Text 2, note phrases about emotion and empathy. What contrast emerges?
Use the relationship word in Text 2
Text 2 says Okafor “disputes” an idea. Does that signal agreement, minor addition, or disagreement with Text 1?
Watch for extremes and misstatements
Eliminate choices that (1) claim Text 2 fully agrees with Text 1, or (2) turn Text 2 into an “all emotion, no logic” reading. Text 2 emphasizes a blend of both.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s characterization
Text 1 presents Vindication as overwhelmingly rational:
- “derives its power almost entirely from Enlightenment logic”
- “coolly methodical” tone
- “syllogistic proofs rather than passionate rhetoric” So Text 1’s perspective is: logic dominates; emotion is minimized.
Identify how Text 2 responds
Text 2 explicitly disputes the idea that the work is chiefly dispassionate reasoning. It emphasizes that Wollstonecraft moves between:
- “deductive arguments” (logic)
- “vivid depictions… invoking empathy” (emotion) and calls this a “fusion” of rational critique and moral sentiment—using both “head and heart.”
Translate that into a cross-text relationship
The question asks how Text 2 modifies Text 1’s perspective. Here, Text 2 does not merely add a detail; it pushes back against Text 1’s near-exclusive emphasis on logic by insisting the treatise intentionally blends emotional appeal with rational argument.
Choose the option that matches the relationship
The correct choice must say that Text 2 challenges the “purely rational” framing by pointing to emotion.
Only this option does so: It challenges the portrayal of the treatise as purely rational by highlighting its deliberate use of emotional appeal.