Question 58·200 Super-Hard SAT Reading Questions·Information and Ideas
Book historians sometimes attribute early modern pamphlets to printing shops by tracking small chips in reusable decorative woodblocks. This method assumes that a block generally remained in one shop: pamphlets displaying the same damaged block were therefore likely printed there. A study found the same distinctive chip in pamphlets issued only days apart under the names of two publishers, neither of whom owned a press. Each publisher's ledger records a payment that week to printer Elias Ward, but neither entry identifies the pamphlet covered by the payment, and Ward sometimes subcontracted work to other printers. Six months later, Ward's inventory listed a woodblock whose surviving design details and chip match the ornament in both pamphlets, though the inventory does not state when Ward acquired the block. Taken together, the evidence most strongly supports the possibility that ____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For a hard inference question, combine all relevant evidence and distinguish what is possible from what is most strongly supported. Give preference to the choice that explains the timing, physical evidence, and business records together without adding unnecessary transfers, coincidences, or claims of certainty.
Hints
Separate the business roles
Consider whether different publisher names necessarily indicate different physical printing locations.
Weigh the chip evidence
Use the passage's stated assumption about where a reusable woodblock generally remained.
Account for the uncertainty
The ledger and inventory do not prove exactly what happened. Look for the possibility that explains all the evidence while requiring the fewest additional events.
Step-by-step Explanation
Distinguish publishers from printers
The publishers named on the pamphlets did not own presses, so their different names do not establish that different shops physically printed the pamphlets.
Connect the physical evidence
The same distinctive chip appears in both pamphlets, and the method described in the passage assumes that a reusable block generally remained in one shop. The pamphlets' publication only days apart therefore favors an explanation involving one shop rather than rapid movement between shops.
Evaluate the records carefully
Payments to Ward do not prove that he personally printed either pamphlet because the entries do not identify the jobs and Ward sometimes subcontracted work. However, the matching block in Ward's later inventory adds support to the possibility that one uncredited shop retained and used the block for both pamphlets.
Choose the best-supported possibility
The evidence does not conclusively establish the block's location at the time of printing, but the single-shop explanation accounts for the matching damage, timing, omitted printer names, and later inventory with the fewest unsupported assumptions.