For a function question involving competing explanations, map each piece of evidence to the claim it supports or limits. Pay particular attention to chronology and concessive words such as “although,” then choose the option that accurately captures the sentence’s complete role without treating suggestive evidence as conclusive.
Hints
- Hint 1
Separate the evidence types
Track what the infrared imaging, workshop records, and inspection notes each establish.
- Hint 2
Examine the chronology
Consider how placing the plans before or after the repairs affects the relevance of each historian’s explanation.
- Hint 3
Interpret the concession
Pay attention to the clause beginning with “although” and ask whether the shared feature conclusively supports either account.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the competing explanations
Sel attributes the plans’ shared feature to copying from a master drawing, whereas Ivo attributes it to independent surveys of the same damaged building.
- Step 2
Connect the chronology to the physical evidence
The first two plans predate the repairs and contain guidelines matching the master drawing. The third postdates the repairs, depicts them, and lacks those guidelines, so the evidence allows different production explanations to apply to different plans.
- Step 3
Interpret the shared error
All three plans retain the same tower angle, but the inspection notes state that the repairs did not change that angle. Thus, both a copied plan and a direct survey could reproduce it, so the shared feature alone does not settle the dispute.