Highlight the author’s conclusions:

Passage A:
The consequence of a historical approach that seeks to “delegitimize” the distinction between imitation and plagiarism is that it demeans and degrades moral thought.

Passage B: 
The varied impulses behind these varying views…have repeatedly complicated judgments of plagiarism.

bad history is no argument against history itself

Map the wording of the answers to the reference in the prompt, or to the author’s conclusions:

14. Both passages are concerned with answering which one of the following questions?

Map the answers to the authors’ conclusions.

(A) How did the modern concept of the author develop…

In all that talk about authors, neither passage mentioned or referenced “the modern concept of the author”.

(B) During what historical period…

Stop. “1996” is the only date mentioned, so no way either passage answers a question about when something happened.

(C) …the relationship between moral standards and power changed over time?

Both passages say “moral standards” are “expressions of power”, but neither mentions any changes in that relationship.

(D) What are the significant differences between plagiarism and simple imitation?

Be careful. The answer to this question would be a list of “differences”, but neither author makes a list like that. Both passages are actually about how tricky answering this question is.

(E) How is the moral dimension of plagiarism to be understood historically?

This maps to the conclusions of both passages. Passage A’s conclusion is about “moral thought” within a “historical approach”, and passage B’s main conclusion is about “judgments of plagiarism”.

(E) is the correct answer.

15. The authors of the two passages would be most likely to agree that

Map the answers to the authors’ conclusions.

(A) …there is no significant difference between plagiarism and imitation

Neither author makes this argument. Passage A’s author actually spent a couple paragraphs disagreeing with this, and passage B just says it’s “complicated”.

(B) …moral standards are ultimately little more than manifestations of power

Be careful, this is both too specific and too broad. If you took out “ultimately little more than”, then this would map to statements both authors made. But neither says “moral standards” are not anything else. That would be way beyond the scope of a passage that’s only about plagiarism.

(C) …more stringent than the views held by most of our predecessors.

The author of passage A is saying exactly the opposite of this with that “required postmodern answer” thing. The view that “there is no difference” is more current but less stringent.

(D) …ultimately absolves plagiarists of responsibility for their actions.

Neither author’s argument says who “plagiarists” even are, let alone whether or not they’re guilty or if this issue “absolves” them of anything.

(E) an inferior kind of historical scholarship practiced today…

This maps directly to the “historical approach” mentioned in passage A’s conclusion, and the “bad history” passage B made a conclusion about. Since you can eliminate all the others on the basis of problematic wording, you want to pick with this without needing to double check the details.

That said, in the second sentence of the third paragraph of passage B, the author agrees with the author of passage A about “some shoddy scholarship that anachronistically projects modern-day ideologies…onto historically remote controversies.”

(E) is the correct answer.

16. Which one of the following is a central purpose common to both passages?

Map the answers to the authors’ conclusions.

(A) to trace the historical development…

Note even close. There are no dates mentioned in either author’s support or conclusions.

(B) to find fault with a way of approaching a scholarly topic

Passage A criticizes Rosenthal’s “way of approaching” plagiarism, and passage B’s criticizes Ricks’ way. This could definitely work.

(C) to examine shifting scholarly attitudes toward a particular topic

This is pretty tricky, but “examine” doesn’t map to the disagreement that shows up in both authors’ conclusions. If the prompt said one purpose, maybe this would work. But a “central purpose” has to capture the main conclusions, which this does not.

(D) to explain why a type of scholarship has become dominant

That’s a pretty strong word. Where do you see either author use that word or a synonym in their argument? I agree, they didn’t.

(E) …a particular book…

Passage B doesn’t even mention any “particular book”.

(B) is the correct answer.

17. By using the phrase “political fervor”, the author of passage A suggests…

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt.

(A) a zealous determination to transform…

That’s pretty much the exact meaning of “political fervor”. Let’s keep this one.

(B) …influence over public policy

There’s no mention of laws or policy anywhere.

(C) …to foster political revolution

There’s no mention of governments anywhere, let alone anything about overthrowing them.

(D) …to provoke heated debate.

Careful, just because “heated debate” is a decent description of what’s in the passage doesn’t mean that’s what Rosenthal was trying to accomplish. That phrase doesn’t actually map to anything stated by the author.

(E) a heartfelt support for a political party

Political parties are never mentioned.

(A) is the correct answer.

18. It can be inferred that the author of passage B regards…

Map the answers to the author’s conclusions. Ricks is the author of passage A. Passage B gave him some credit for a couple things, but ultimately disagreed with his “approach”.

(A) irresponsible

All the answers say something negative, so just that clearly isn’t good enough. You should recognize this doesn’t even really mean the argument is wrong or flawed, which the right answer really has to capture. And good luck finding any wording this would map to. There isn’t any, and passage B’s author never talked about consequences of Ricks’ approach that might imply this.

(B) incomprehensible

This is definitely way too strong. Passage B’s author clearly understood Ricks’ approach, and even agreed with him about a couple things.

(C) deceitful

Passage B definitely never says Ricks was lying or intentionally misleading anybody.

(D) simplistic

Even if this doesn’t sound great, at least it captures that Ricks’ argument is weak without necessarily being totally wrong. On this list that’s good enough for you to not to eliminate it. Since passage B’s conclusion is that it’s “complicated”, it’s not too much of a stretch to think they’d agree that Ricks’ approach is too simple.

(E) reprehensible

Passage B never suggests its author is grossed out or disgusted by Ricks’ approach.

(D) is the correct answer.

19. Passage A asserts that the inevitable answer to the question raised in Rosenthal’s book is that

Map the answers to the reference in the prompt. This maps to the first paragraph where the author gave Rosenthal’s “required postmodern answer: that there is no difference between these things”. That’s what the right answer has to say.

(A) political history must avoid…

That doesn’t sound like the reference in the passage at all.

(B) there is no difference…

This matches the reference in the passage perfectly.

(C) moral conventions are worthy of respect

That doesn’t sound like the reference in the passage.

(D) there has been much fluidity…

That doesn’t sound like the reference in the passage either.

(E) bad history is not…

And neither does this. Accurate details from other parts of the passage don’t work when the prompt makes such a specific reference.

(B) is the correct answer.

20. Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the relationship between the two passages?

Map the answers to the authors’ conclusions. Don’t forget passage B is disagreeing with the author of passage A.

(A) …passage A conforms to that recommendation.

Nothing in here about the disagreement between the two.

(B) …undermined by the evidence offered in passage A.

Be careful, “undermined” doesn’t just mean they disagree. It means one invalidates the other. The debate in these passages remains unresolved though. No one “undermined” anyone else.

(C) …passage A errs in some of its details.

Don’t you err in some of your details too! That doesn’t mean “disagree”, it means somebody got something factually incorrect. Passage B never said that.

(D) …suggests that the author of passage A carries his position to an unjustifiable extreme.

The “unjustifiable extreme” maps to passage B’s conclusion about an “argument against history itself”. Since they also did “concur” about “certain views”, this all maps really nicely.

(E) …implies that all of the assertions made…

Nope, they agreed about a couple things.

(D) is the correct answer.