For a function question, distinguish the passage’s observation from its interpretation. Track what the text discusses before and after the underlined portion, and then test close choices for unsupported claims about cause, scope, or certainty—such as confusing lack of institutional endorsement with active opposition.
Hints
- Hint 1
Compare the surrounding claims
Identify what earlier critics thought the pronoun shifts revealed, then note what Ortiz investigates after the underlined sentence.
- Hint 2
Analyze the contrast
Consider the difference between saying that the shifts remain patterned and saying that a different feature of the pattern now requires explanation.
- Hint 3
Check the scope of each option
Distinguish between evidence about authorship, evidence about who edited the text, and evidence about how a newspaper presented a claim.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the original interpretation
Earlier critics treated switches between “we” and “I” as evidence that different writers contributed different passages.
- Step 2
Interpret the documentary evidence
The proofs complicate that interpretation in two ways: shifts appear even in editorials with drafts in a single hand, and collaboratively drafted editorials can retain “we” throughout. The shifts remain patterned, but their relationship to authorship is unreliable.
- Step 3
Connect the underlined sentence to what follows
The final sentence redirects attention from who wrote each passage to what the pronoun changes do. Ortiz argues that “I” could distance the newspaper institutionally from a judgment it was nevertheless willing to publish. Thus, the underlined sentence separates the observed pattern from the earlier explanation and sets up a rhetorical analysis.