For cross-text questions, break the first text’s conclusion into its separate claims and test each one against the second text. When several choices preserve different parts of an argument, verify whether each choice accounts for every relevant qualification rather than merely one of them.
Hints
- Hint 1
Separate the conclusions
Identify the two distinct claims Mehta draws from the chemical match: one about who wrote the correction and one about when it was written.
- Hint 2
Track what remains constant
Determine whether Text 2 links a stable chemical profile most directly to a copyist, a work session, or a prepared batch.
- Hint 3
Test each inference independently
Consider the implications of multiple copyists sharing ink and of unfinished ink being used again later.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify Mehta’s two inferences
Mehta uses the chemical match to infer both that the same copyist wrote the correction and that the correction was made during the same work session as the adjacent lines.
- Step 2
Determine what the chemistry can indicate
Text 2 states that fresh batches generally had distinguishable trace-metal ratios and that a batch’s ratios remained stable. A close chemical match can therefore provide evidence that the inks came from the same prepared batch.
- Step 3
Test the authorship inference
Several copyists could draw from one shared batch. Thus, using the same batch does not necessarily mean that the same copyist produced both pieces of writing.
- Step 4
Test the timing inference
An unfinished batch could be sealed and reused in a later session. Therefore, use of the same batch does not necessarily mean that the correction and adjacent lines were written during the same session.
- Step 5
Select the complete response
The best response preserves the limited inference about access to a common batch while rejecting both the same-copyist and same-session conclusions as unsupported by the chemical match alone.