For a command-of-evidence question, translate the claim into a checklist of distinct requirements. Then evaluate each option against the entire checklist rather than selecting evidence that supports only the general topic. Give preference to evidence that directly links a cause, response, and result while also matching any condition about scope or attribution, such as the absence of central coordination.
Hints
- Hint 1
Break apart the proposal
Identify every element the evidence must support, including the type of change and how that change was coordinated.
- Hint 2
Seek a before-and-after pattern
Look for evidence connecting an observed problem in an earlier version with a relevant revision in later versions.
- Hint 3
Check the source of direction
Evidence of successful revision is not enough if a formal organization supervised or distributed the revision.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the claim's requirements
Morgan's proposal has several parts: users recognize a practical shortcoming, change the instructions in a way that improves the remedy, and do so through informal networks rather than under a central authority.
- Step 2
Look for a complete chain of evidence
The strongest evidence should show a before-and-after pattern: an early version produces a reported problem, later users introduce a relevant change, and subsequent records indicate that the problem has stopped. It should also establish that no editor or organization directed the change.
- Step 3
Select the best-supported finding
The finding that satisfies all these requirements is: Early copies of one salve recipe contain notes that it separated in storage; in later copies from lending circles with no shared editor, users add the same stabilizing step, after which such complaints cease.