A question about one author’s response to another tests whether you can apply that author’s reasoning. Read the question to find who answers whom, then sum up that author’s claim and reason. If the other text presents a problem, ask how the claim relates to it. Name the stance: reject says a claim is wrong or unsupported, qualify accepts it with limits, and extend applies it to a new case. A response that seems reasonable can still give a reason that isn’t in the text.
Hints
- Hint 1
Text 1’s author is the one responding. Find what this author says makes digital collections useful to researchers.
- Hint 2
Look for why reconstructing who said what and when is difficult in Text 2.
- Hint 3
Connect Text 1’s claim to the cause named in Text 2. Would the author reject the claim, add limits to it, or apply it to a new setting?
Step-by-step
Apply Text 1’s reasoning to a new case
Step 1Find who answers and why
Read the question’s direction: the author of Text 1 is answering the problem identified in Text 2. What does that author think makes digital records useful? Text 1 says standardized metadata makes items findable and verifiable across platforms and institutions because shared descriptions let researchers trace an artist’s work across records.
- Step 2
Connect the problem to the fields that matter
Why are the social-media records hard to use? Text 2 says handles obscure authorship, timestamps differ by region and calls the metadata inconsistent or missing. These gaps make it hard to tell who wrote a post and when. Text 2 describes trouble with fields Text 1 treats as needed, so its problem connects directly to Text 1’s claim.
- Step 3
Name the stance and test the reasons
Does Text 2 challenge Text 1’s claim or give it a new use? It gives it a new use, so the author would extend the claim. We can set aside not transferable because Text 1 gives no such limit, and making detailed metadata largely unnecessary because it rejects that author’s main point. The proposal to repeatedly capture the same posts offers a method neither text recommends, instead of using the same descriptive schemas Text 1 favors.
- Step 4
Check the solution and its limits
The proposal using shared metadata standards connects Text 1’s fields to Text 2’s gaps: creator fields record authorship, reliable timestamps place posts in time, and persistent identifiers help track each record. Its word mitigate means reduce, so it promises less uncertainty, not a complete fix. That limit matters because Text 2 also says posts may be deleted or edited. Choice D.