Back to the on-screen lesson ·
Identify shared commitments, disagreements, differences in emphasis and cross-passage applications.
Paper packet. Every task here also exists on screen, where it is checked automatically; answers written on paper are not assessed by Nydus. When you are back at a device, enter your answers there.
Compare two authors without blending their voices or turning a qualification into a contradiction.
You have mapped single passages and located support for local claims. Comparative reading requires those same operations twice, followed by a comparison. The disagreement lesson's yes/no/unknown discipline helps prevent attributing one author's view to the other.
| Term | What it means |
|---|---|
| Shared commitment | A proposition supported by both authors, not merely mentioned by both. |
| Qualification | A limit or condition added to a claim without necessarily rejecting it. |
| Complementary focus | Different contributions to the same larger issue that can coexist. |
| Cross-passage inference | A conclusion about the relationship between texts supported by evidence from each. |
Two passages may share a subject while asking different questions about it. One may argue that digital access should expand; another may examine how contextual information makes that access useful. The second passage can qualify or develop the first without rejecting its central aim. Read each author's claim, reasons and limits before deciding how the passages relate.
Make a separate one-sentence summary for A and B. Then identify their common issue and compare their commitments on that issue. They may agree on a goal but differ on priorities, agree on evidence but differ on its significance, or address complementary parts of a larger problem. Do not force every pair into a simple for-versus-against structure.
Cross-passage questions can ask what both authors would accept, how one would respond to the other, or which example would satisfy a principle from one passage. These require evidence from both texts. A statement supported by A alone is not automatically a shared belief. A criticism made by B is not automatically a complete rejection of A.
Another way: picture
Keep two columns for A and B with rows for issue, main claim, evidence, qualification and recommendation. Compare matching rows only after each column has a textual basis.
Another way: steps
Map A independently; map B independently; identify the shared issue; compare their exact commitments; verify both sides of any claimed agreement, disagreement or response.
Identify A's position and limits on their own terms. If A already acknowledges that digital copies omit physical features, do not later attribute a perfect-substitution claim to A simply because B discusses those omissions. The first passage's qualifications remain part of its position throughout the comparison.
A brief map reduces the temptation to revise A's meaning after reading B. Record what A recommends, what concern A concedes and what extreme A rejects. Those distinctions can reveal substantial common ground that a quick topical summary would miss. The goal is a faithful starting point, not an advance guess about the pair's eventual disagreement.
B may begin with a concern that sounds opposed to A, then endorse a modified version of A's proposal. Read through the conclusion before labeling the relationship. An opening criticism does not necessarily define the final position.
In the archive pair, B warns that isolated scans can lose context but explicitly rejects closing digital collections. The recommendation is to improve descriptions and links. That makes B's concern compatible with A's support for reliable copies whose limitations are disclosed. The passages differ in emphasis while sharing a constructive stance toward access. An answer describing B as demanding closure ignores an explicit commitment.
One passage may ask whether access should expand while another asks how expanded access should be organized. Those questions overlap but are not identical. Their answers can be complementary. If both instead address which principle should take priority in the same conflict, opposed recommendations may establish a direct disagreement.
Name the common question as specifically as the texts permit. Digital archives is only a topic; whether copies should include contextual descriptions is a proposition. The narrower formulation makes it possible to test each author's position. It also prevents a statement about one aspect of the topic from being inflated into total agreement or total opposition.
For a question about what both authors support, locate a basis in each passage. A may endorse preserving originals explicitly while B implies their importance by distinguishing physical preservation from interface design. A faithful implication can count, but silence cannot be converted into endorsement.
Avoid choosing a statement merely because it sounds reasonable and neither author rejects it. Both support is stronger than neither explicitly opposes. The passage pair must provide affirmative grounds. If one author discusses only access and says nothing about a particular funding model, you cannot assume both endorse that model even if it could serve their goals.
A question about how B would respond to A asks for an inference from B's stated principles, not a guess about temperament. If B says image counts alone are insufficient, B would likely question a project judged solely by uploads. That response follows from the criterion, regardless of whether B sounds optimistic or cautious elsewhere.
The response should be no broader than the principle supports. B can criticize a sole metric without rejecting every project that reports the metric. B can ask for context without denying the value of access. Keep the target of the response exact so a limited concern does not become an imagined wholesale rejection.
Passages can reach similar recommendations by different routes. One may emphasize access for excluded users; another may emphasize accurate interpretation. An answer about their methods should preserve that difference even when their conclusions overlap. Conversely, similar examples can support different conclusions if the authors use different standards.
Ask what role the shared subject plays in each argument. Is digitization the proposed solution in A and the object of a design critique in B? Is historical evidence used to defend a policy in one and to limit a generalization in the other? A relation answer can be accurate only if it accounts for these functions rather than matching repeated nouns.
When two relation descriptions seem plausible, test their strongest words. Contradicts requires incompatible commitments. Extends suggests that B develops something A leaves less detailed. Illustrates requires a general claim and a case that exemplifies it. Provides evidence for requires an evidential relation, not merely a similar opinion.
Replace A and B in the answer with your actual summaries. If the resulting sentence says that a call for contextual descriptions contradicts a call for copies with clear limitations, the relation is suspect. Both can hold together. This substitution test exposes attractive abstract answers that do not fit the specific pair, while preserving genuine differences in emphasis or priority.
When two reports address a policy, summarize each independently before describing their relationship. Record the common goal, the evidence each uses and the conditions each places on a recommendation. This helps distinguish a true disagreement from different contributions to the same problem.
The paired passages here are original instructional texts. The automatic records assess cross-passage judgments among supplied alternatives; they do not evaluate an original synthesis essay. Review errors by identifying which side of the comparison lacked support. If you attributed a belief to both authors, locate evidence in both. If you claimed a contradiction, state the incompatible propositions precisely. If the claims can both be true, consider whether the relationship is qualification or complementary focus instead. Retrieve this two-source check on the next pair rather than carrying a generic expectation that the second author must oppose the first.
Shared vocabulary is not shared commitment, silence is not agreement, and a qualification is not automatically a contradiction. Preserve each author's own limits.
Read the passage and question.
A: A neighborhood history should preserve residents' memories, which often record activities absent from official files. B: Residents' memories are valuable, but a history should identify disagreements among accounts rather than blend them into a single seamless story.
How does B relate to A?
B values memories but adds a requirement to preserve disagreements among them.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: B accepts the value of memories and adds a condition for using them responsibly. 2: B denies every claim A makes. 3: A proves memories are always accurate. 4: Both demand destruction of official files. 5: B discusses an unrelated topic.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
B accepts the value of memories and adds a condition for using them responsibly.
B's qualification concerns disagreement, not whether memories have value.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Both value residents' memories. 3: A only identifies a kind of information they may preserve. 4: Neither proposes that. 5: Both concern using memory in neighborhood history.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A: An exhibit should prioritize chronological order so visitors can trace change over time. B: An exhibit should prioritize thematic groups even when that disrupts chronological order, because comparison across periods is its central purpose.
Where do the authors differ?
The authors choose different organizing principles when the two conflict.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Which organizing principle should take priority when chronology and thematic grouping conflict. 2: Whether exhibits contain objects. 3: Whether time exists. 4: Whether every exhibit must be closed. 5: Whether thematic groups can ever contain chronology.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Which organizing principle should take priority when chronology and thematic grouping conflict.
A prioritizes chronology and B prioritizes thematic comparison in the stated tradeoff.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Neither disputes that background assumption. 3: Neither addresses that claim. 4: Neither proposes closure. 5: Their priority claims do not deny all compatible arrangements.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Read the passage and question.
A: A small pilot suggests that evening library hours reach readers who cannot visit during the day; this supports a larger trial. B: The pilot's volunteers may not represent all residents, so its result does not yet justify a permanent citywide expansion. Further testing is needed.
Which statement is supported about both authors?
A supports another trial and B rejects immediate permanent expansion; those positions can coexist.
Compare the five proposed answers.
1: Both can support further testing without endorsing permanent expansion now. 2: They disagree that any further trial is useful. 3: Both say the pilot proves universal demand. 4: B says the pilot recorded no visits. 5: A insists on immediate permanent expansion.
Apply the question's test to each option; do not choose solely by shared vocabulary.
Explain the best answer.
Both can support further testing without endorsing permanent expansion now.
A asks for a larger trial and B explicitly calls for more testing before permanent expansion.
Account for every rejected answer.
2: Both endorse further inquiry. 3: Neither makes that claim. 4: B questions representativeness, not the existence of visits. 5: A recommends a larger trial, a weaker step.
Each rejection identifies a specific mismatch with the passage or task.
Check the difficult boundary.
A demand for more evidence is not necessarily opposition to the proposal being investigated.
This last check preserves the exact strength and scope of the answer rather than turning it into a broader claim.
Summarize the two positions.
A recommends opening digital records with clear limits. B recommends including context so users can interpret digital records accurately.
Both favor access with explanatory support.
State the relationship.
B develops a condition for useful access that is compatible with A's recommendation.
The second text adds detail rather than denying the shared aim.
Reject an exaggerated contrast.
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. Which statement best describes the relation between the passages?
Passage A A city should replace some ornamental lawns with community gardens. Residents who lack private land could then grow food, and working together may create opportunities for neighbors to meet. A pilot would allow the city to learn which sites attract sustained participation before making a larger commitment. The city should provide water and accessible paths rather than assume that volunteers can supply every resource. Existing lawns have costs too, so the comparison should include what the city already spends on mowing and irrigation. Passage B Community gardens can give residents valuable growing space. However, offering plots does not by itself establish that the benefits will reach people who most need them. Registration systems may favor residents with flexible schedules, while plots requiring frequent visits may exclude others. A pilot should therefore record who applies, who receives a plot and who remains able to participate. Shared plots and flexible arrangements may help, but their effects should be checked. The appropriate response to unequal participation is to investigate and improve access, not to assume that growing space has no value. A successful harvest alone would not show that a program had met its access goals. How would the author of B most likely respond to A's proposed pilot? (1) Reject the pilot because growing food has no value to residents. (2) Accept a large harvest as sufficient proof that access goals were met. (3) Insist that volunteers must provide all water and paths. (4) Conclude that replacing every lawn immediately is the only defensible policy. (5) Support investigating the proposal, while asking the pilot to examine who can participate. Map each author separately and verify both sides of any claimed agreement, disagreement or qualification. Complete the method with the number of the best answer.
Name the precise task.
Map each author separately and verify both sides of any claimed agreement, disagreement or qualification.
The question determines what would count as a successful answer.
Compare the candidates against the target.
Best answer: answer.
Preserve quantities, speaker attribution and the exact conclusion or passage claim.
Check the strongest rival.
Explain which required connection that rival lacks.
A defensible rejection exposes the misconception rather than memorizing an option number.
Passage A A translation intended for readers encountering an old poem for the first time should usually favor familiar syntax. If every line requires a note about an unusual construction, readers may lose the movement of the poem while decoding its grammar. This does not license a translator to erase difficult ideas or replace precise images with vague summaries. It means that an unfamiliar grammatical form should not be preserved merely because it occurs in the original. Where retaining that form makes a line cumbersome without changing its substantive meaning, I would choose a fluent construction. Notes can explain the choice. Passage B A translation can communicate something important through an unfamiliar grammatical form even when a smoother version conveys the same substantive claim. An unexpected order of words may interrupt habitual reading and make the poem's distance from everyday speech perceptible. For an introductory edition, that encounter with difference is part of the purpose, not merely an obstacle. I would retain a cumbersome construction when it creates that effect, even if familiar syntax would express the same claim. This is not a demand to copy every feature mechanically. The translator should explain which unusual forms contribute to the reading experience and which merely confuse it. On which translation decision do the authors most clearly disagree? (1) Whether every grammatical feature must always be copied mechanically. (2) Whether translators should explain their choices. (3) Whether a difficult idea should be replaced with a vague summary. (4) Whether introductory readers should be permitted to read poetry. (5) Whether to retain cumbersome syntax that preserves a sense of linguistic distance without changing the substantive claim. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. Which statement best describes the relation between the passages?
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. Which proposal would both authors most likely support?
Passage A A translation intended for readers encountering an old poem for the first time should usually favor familiar syntax. If every line requires a note about an unusual construction, readers may lose the movement of the poem while decoding its grammar. This does not license a translator to erase difficult ideas or replace precise images with vague summaries. It means that an unfamiliar grammatical form should not be preserved merely because it occurs in the original. Where retaining that form makes a line cumbersome without changing its substantive meaning, I would choose a fluent construction. Notes can explain the choice. Passage B A translation can communicate something important through an unfamiliar grammatical form even when a smoother version conveys the same substantive claim. An unexpected order of words may interrupt habitual reading and make the poem's distance from everyday speech perceptible. For an introductory edition, that encounter with difference is part of the purpose, not merely an obstacle. I would retain a cumbersome construction when it creates that effect, even if familiar syntax would express the same claim. This is not a demand to copy every feature mechanically. The translator should explain which unusual forms contribute to the reading experience and which merely confuse it. On which translation decision do the authors most clearly disagree?
Passage A A city should replace some ornamental lawns with community gardens. Residents who lack private land could then grow food, and working together may create opportunities for neighbors to meet. A pilot would allow the city to learn which sites attract sustained participation before making a larger commitment. The city should provide water and accessible paths rather than assume that volunteers can supply every resource. Existing lawns have costs too, so the comparison should include what the city already spends on mowing and irrigation. Passage B Community gardens can give residents valuable growing space. However, offering plots does not by itself establish that the benefits will reach people who most need them. Registration systems may favor residents with flexible schedules, while plots requiring frequent visits may exclude others. A pilot should therefore record who applies, who receives a plot and who remains able to participate. Shared plots and flexible arrangements may help, but their effects should be checked. The appropriate response to unequal participation is to investigate and improve access, not to assume that growing space has no value. A successful harvest alone would not show that a program had met its access goals. How would the author of B most likely respond to A's proposed pilot?
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. Which issue receives more emphasis in B than in A?
Passage A [1] A public archive should make accurate digital copies of fragile documents widely available. Restricting access to visitors able to travel to a reading room limits who can investigate the collection. A searchable copy can also reveal connections among documents that would be difficult to locate by handling one folder at a time. These are substantial gains even when a copy cannot reproduce every physical feature of the original. [2] Critics correctly observe that paper texture, binding and marks of use can matter to research. This is a reason to preserve originals and describe what a digital copy omits, not a reason to withhold the copy. The access question should not be confused with a claim of perfect substitution. An archive can broaden access while maintaining a route for researchers whose questions require physical inspection. Limited resources make priorities necessary, but the default should favor sharing reliable copies with clear descriptions of their limits. Passage B [1] Digitization can greatly expand access to an archive, but the usefulness of that access depends on how copies are described and organized. A scan detached from information about its original order or later alteration may invite a mistaken interpretation. Search systems also encourage users to retrieve isolated matches, which can obscure the relation between one document and the surrounding collection. More searchable material is therefore not automatically more intelligible evidence. [2] These problems do not justify closing digital collections. They require investment in descriptions, links to collection context and explanations of uncertainty. A well-designed interface can show that a document was later annotated or that its present folder differs from its original location. Researchers then gain access to evidence and to information needed to interpret it. Institutions should judge a digitization project partly by the quality of those contextual supports rather than by the number of images uploaded alone. Preserving physical originals remains important, but the immediate problem discussed here is how digital access can retain meaningful context rather than encourage users to mistake a searchable fragment for a self-contained record. A would most likely regard B's proposal for contextual links as:
Passage A A city should replace some ornamental lawns with community gardens. Residents who lack private land could then grow food, and working together may create opportunities for neighbors to meet. A pilot would allow the city to learn which sites attract sustained participation before making a larger commitment. The city should provide water and accessible paths rather than assume that volunteers can supply every resource. Existing lawns have costs too, so the comparison should include what the city already spends on mowing and irrigation. Passage B Community gardens can give residents valuable growing space. However, offering plots does not by itself establish that the benefits will reach people who most need them. Registration systems may favor residents with flexible schedules, while plots requiring frequent visits may exclude others. A pilot should therefore record who applies, who receives a plot and who remains able to participate. Shared plots and flexible arrangements may help, but their effects should be checked. The appropriate response to unequal participation is to investigate and improve access, not to assume that growing space has no value. A successful harvest alone would not show that a program had met its access goals. Which outcome would satisfy an aim emphasized by A while leaving B's main concern unresolved?
Passage A A city should replace some ornamental lawns with community gardens. Residents who lack private land could then grow food, and working together may create opportunities for neighbors to meet. A pilot would allow the city to learn which sites attract sustained participation before making a larger commitment. The city should provide water and accessible paths rather than assume that volunteers can supply every resource. Existing lawns have costs too, so the comparison should include what the city already spends on mowing and irrigation. Passage B Community gardens can give residents valuable growing space. However, offering plots does not by itself establish that the benefits will reach people who most need them. Registration systems may favor residents with flexible schedules, while plots requiring frequent visits may exclude others. A pilot should therefore record who applies, who receives a plot and who remains able to participate. Shared plots and flexible arrangements may help, but their effects should be checked. The appropriate response to unequal participation is to investigate and improve access, not to assume that growing space has no value. A successful harvest alone would not show that a program had met its access goals. Which statement identifies an agreement without overstating it?
A: Public benches should be evaluated partly by whether people can rest comfortably; appearance alone is insufficient. B: Comfortable benches matter, but their location also determines whether people can use them. A well-designed bench far from walking routes may provide little practical access. How are the passages related? (1) B says no bench should be comfortable. (2) A claims location can never matter. (3) Both prioritize appearance alone. (4) They address unrelated objects. (5) B accepts A's concern and adds another condition of practical usefulness. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Lesson test: one question per skill, one attempt each, no hints. Your answers are checked when you submit.
Passage A A museum should provide translated exhibit labels so that more visitors can understand its collection. Translation inevitably involves choices, but this is a reason to explain difficult decisions, not to leave visitors without an accessible introduction. Passage B Translated labels can widen access. Their value depends partly on whether they preserve distinctions important to the objects' histories. When a familiar translated term obscures a contested category, a short note can explain the difficulty. Museums should assess interpretive clarity as well as the number of languages offered. Which commitment do the authors share? (1) Wider access is valuable, and interpretive choices should be explained. (2) Translation can reproduce every distinction without judgment. (3) Language count is the only measure of success. (4) Contested categories should be concealed. (5) Museums should avoid translated labels altogether. Enter Y for the best answer to the question and N for each rejected alternative. Then identify the question kind. Task codes: AR argument parts; NA necessary assumption; SA sufficient assumption; ST strengthen; WE weaken; FL flaw; IN inference; PR principle; PA parallel; RE resolve; ME method or role; DI disagreement; EV evaluate; AN analogy; MU misunderstanding; MP main point or structure; DE detail or supported reading inference; CO compare passages; AT attitude or application; VC words and rhetorical purpose; RP passage principles and analogies; NE new evidence in reading; WR writing-plan analysis. These analysis records are instructional exercises, not the official response format.
| Analysis | Y/N or task code |
|---|---|
| Alternative 1 | |
| Alternative 2 | |
| Alternative 3 | |
| Alternative 4 | |
| Alternative 5 | |
| Question kind |
Tomorrow, summarize each of two short passages independently before naming their relationship. Recall why shared topic does not prove agreement and different emphasis does not prove disagreement. Next: infer attitude and apply a passage's principle.
17. Keep a qualification distinct from rejection, step 3
B does not demand that every digital collection close.
A concern about interpretation is not equivalent to rejecting access.