- (C) is a detail creep as the author never says much more about footnotes, prefaces, etc. than what is given in line 33-35, which doesn't support (C).
(D) talks about "historical import" which is never discussed AND it is a comparison trap. We never compare the two.
(E) is unsupported and, if anything, we would believed that literary analysis of edited autobiographies would NOT enhance their integrity.
#1: So (A) is very strong which is why I eliminated it while (B) says the same thing but in a less strong way. If (A) is correct, wouldn't (B) necessarily be correct too? Thus wouldn't choosing the weaker answer in these types of questions be the better way to go?
#2: I thought that "Analysts should reserve close analytic readings for independently authored texts" was a pretty strong statement, basically saying that if you are going to analyze closely it should be by independently authored stuff. Yet "Discussion of collaborate texts should take into account the conditions that governed their production" seems to show that the author is not exactly "adamantly opposed" it. It also seems that if the author had such a strong opinion, he wouldn't pose the passage as an analysis of a question (lines 5-9) but rather would be much more open about his opinion in the beginning. How is this thinking?
