Passage A.
█████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███
███ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████
███ ████████ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ █ ████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █ ████ ████ ██ ███████
██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ █ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ██ █ ████████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███
███████ █
█ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ██████ █ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████████ █████████
████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ █ ████ ██ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███
The passages are alike in ████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ██
anticipating and refuting ███ ████ ████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████
This says the authors support a theory by identifying objections and refuting those objections. Author A doesn’t do this. Perhaps she takes St. Augustine’s view in P1 and shows that some people object to it in P2. But it’s a stretch to call St. Augustine’s view a “theory,” and author A doesn’t refute the objection so much as clarify certain moral considerations. And author B doesn’t identify and refute any objections. He raises an objection to the idea that repaying immoral acts in kind is a duty, but he doesn’t refute that objection—he supports it.
using an analogy ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █████
Author A draws an analogy between bullies and liars. But author B doesn’t use any analogies. He just asks if we have a duty to repay immoral acts in kind, and then follows through on the implications of that idea.
focusing on a ████████ ████ ██ ██████████ █ ██████████████
Author A does this with the specific case of a liar. But author B doesn’t do this. He discusses immoral acts, and repaying those acts in kind, in very general terms only.
suggesting that a ████ ███ ████ ████████████ ████████████
Author A says the view that we should repay a liar with lies would have the unreasonable consequence of harms to “self, others, and general trust.” And author B says the view that we have a duty to repay immoral acts in kind would have the unreasonable consequence of obligating us to repay every sort of action in kind.
offering and defending █ ███ ██████████ ███ █ ████████ ████ ████
Author A doesn’t offer a new definition for anything, which is enough to eliminate (E). Author B also doesn’t offer a new definition.