Question 76·200 Super-Hard SAT Reading Questions·Craft and Structure
Text 1
Textual historian Amara Bell cautions that manuscripts sharing a legal formula need not have been copied from one another; each may draw independently on a common template. She gives more weight to a shared innovation—an unusual change absent from the template—but says that such a change establishes a textual relationship, not necessarily direct copying. The direction of that relationship becomes clearer when physical evidence in one manuscript shows an innovation arising during revision and a later manuscript embeds the revised wording seamlessly. Differences in spelling carry less weight because copyists often updated spelling while retaining wording.
Text 2
Most surviving fourteenth-century copies of a charter use the formula “to Elena and her heirs forever.” The Norwick manuscript, dated 1420, initially read “to Elena forever,” but its scribe inserted “as well as to her heirs” above the line, producing the unusual wording “to Elena, as well as to her heirs, forever.” The Eastmere manuscript, dated 1465, presents that unusual wording as uninterrupted text. Eastmere modernizes spelling throughout, and no other surviving manuscript written before 1465 contains the paraphrase found in Norwick.
Based on the texts, which choice best states how Bell would most likely interpret the evidence described in Text 2?
For a difficult cross-text question, first classify each kind of evidence according to the framework in Text 1. Then apply the complete framework—including any qualifications about chronology, revision, or evidentiary weight—to Text 2, choosing the option that explains all relevant details without claiming more than the evidence supports.
Hints
Classify the evidence
Distinguish the standard legal formula, the unusual paraphrase, the visible correction, and the spelling differences. Text 1 assigns these features different evidentiary value.
Trace the unusual wording
Consider where the paraphrase first appears in the surviving evidence and how it appears in each manuscript.
Use chronology carefully
Compare the manuscripts’ dates with the visible sequence of omission and correction before deciding which direction of textual influence is best supported.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Bell’s framework
Bell distinguishes standard language, which manuscripts may inherit independently from a common template, from unusual innovations, which provide stronger evidence of a textual relationship.
Locate the distinctive innovation
Norwick’s scribe changed the standard formula by inserting the unusual paraphrase “as well as to her heirs.” No other surviving manuscript written before Eastmere contains this wording.
Use revision sequence and chronology
Physical evidence shows the paraphrase arising as a correction in Norwick in 1420. Eastmere, dated 1465, incorporates the same wording into its uninterrupted text. Under Bell’s framework, this sequence supports Eastmere’s descent from Norwick’s corrected state, directly or through another copy.
Evaluate the spelling difference
Eastmere’s modernized spelling does not outweigh the shared paraphrase because Bell notes that copyists may update spelling while retaining wording inherited from an earlier manuscript.