For command-of-evidence questions involving competing explanations, identify the exact pattern predicted by the claim and then compare how well each finding rules out alternatives. Give greatest weight to evidence that tests the prediction within the relevant individuals while controlling for variables such as time and location.
Hints
- Hint 1
Focus on the unit of comparison
Ask whether each finding compares the spelling choices of the same individuals or merely compares different groups of texts.
- Hint 2
Consider rival explanations
A finding is weaker if differences in date, findspot, or authorship could account for the spelling pattern.
- Hint 3
Test the complete prediction
Look for evidence that connects spelling to correspondence type rather than merely to the location where a fragment was found.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the claim
Morad proposes that individual scribes varied their spelling according to the kind of correspondence: civic messages favored full forms, whereas routine dockworker messages favored shortened forms.
- Step 2
Identify the necessary comparison
Strong evidence should establish the predicted difference within the work of the same scribes. It should also control for date and findspot so that historical change or geographic distribution cannot readily explain the result.
- Step 3
Compare the findings
Choice C makes the required within-scribe comparison and holds decade and findspot constant. The other findings leave scribal identity, recipient, geography, or chronology as a plausible alternative explanation.