For a difficult inference question, compare the scope and strength of each piece of evidence. Track quantifiers carefully, distinguish evidence about specific cases from general statements, and reject choices that convert a limited observation into a universal claim.
Hints
- Hint 1
Track the quantifier
Notice exactly what the word “most” describes: all dashes, or only discrepancies between two versions?
- Hint 2
Rank the evidence
Compare evidence concerning particular punctuation marks with Sen's broad statement about the possible effect of punctuation.
- Hint 3
Avoid overgeneralizing
Do not turn decisions about two typesetter-added marks into a rule about every dash in a particular position.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Distinguish dashes from discrepancies
Most discrepancies occur at line endings, but the passage does not say that most line-end dashes differ from Sen's drafts. Indeed, several line-end dashes match the drafts, while nearly all midline dashes do.
- Step 2
Examine the proof corrections
Sen deleted two line-end dashes known to have been added during typesetting and retained midline dashes also found in an earlier draft. These actions provide evidence about particular marks rather than establishing a universal rule based only on position.
- Step 3
Assess the letter's scope
Sen's letter confirms that she valued punctuation-induced hesitation in general, but it does not identify which printed dashes she intended. Thus, a draft or proof that supports a specific dash is stronger evidence of authorial intention than the letter alone.