For cross-text questions, divide the first author's conclusion into its component claims, such as whether a feature was deliberate and what purpose it served. Then determine exactly which components the second text supports, qualifies, or rejects, avoiding options that combine separate facts into an inference the text does not make.
Hints
- Hint 1
Separate the two parts of the claim
Distinguish between intentionally preserving open space and intending a particular use for that space.
- Hint 2
Check the additions' history
Consider whether the date and authorship of the handwritten material make it evidence about Vos's original purchasers.
- Hint 3
Limit each piece of evidence
Ask what the advertisement and the layout changes establish individually, without combining them into a stronger conclusion than Text 2 permits.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify Okafor's full conclusion
Okafor claims not only that Vos deliberately left areas open but also that he did so for a particular purpose: to let purchasers add geographic information from their travels.
- Step 2
Assess Okafor's evidence using Text 2
Varga finds that most of the handwritten additions came from one collector centuries after the atlases were printed, so those additions do not show how original purchasers used the maps. He also explains that the advertisement's wording commonly referred to corrections in later editions rather than customer annotations.
- Step 3
Preserve the limited support
Vos's removal of decorative ships suggests that open space was an intentional part of the layout. However, Varga explicitly cautions that this design choice does not identify the activity Vos expected there, so it cannot establish Okafor's proposed purpose.