Explanation

3. The sentence concerning the naturalist Elias Ward functions primarily to

The key is to understand why Elias Ward is mentioned.

The passage says that the novel appears to endorse the conventional idea that natural-history reading is intellectually and morally superior. But then it tells us that the naturalists being praised-such as Elias Ward-were theologically suspect because of their deism.

Surface message: “Natural history is good; sentimental fiction is bad.”
Deeper implication: Praising natural history may also mean praising or associating oneself with figures whose religious views were considered heterodox.

That's exactly what A describes.

Why the other choices are wrong

B. The passage never says the novelists intended to spread deism. That's an important distinction.

The author says the praise of natural history was a “maneuver whose implications depended on what the reader already knew.” The implication may be heterodox, but that doesn't prove the authors consciously intended to propagate deism.

A is much more careful: it says the example reveals a difference between surface endorsement and deeper implications, without claiming authorial intention.

C. The passage actually describes the periodicals as “emphatic and near-unanimous” in praising natural-history reading.
The apparent inconsistency is not primarily in how periodicals judged natural history. Rather, it's that natural history itself had associations that complicated its supposedly orthodox moral status.

D. Nothing suggests their scientific value was doubtful. Quite the opposite: their “descriptive work was being commended from pulpits.”

The problem was their theology, not their science.

E. The passage says Ward's deism was a “matter of public notoriety.” That means it was widely known, not unknown.

In fact, the final sentence emphasizes that the implications depended on what the reader already knew about the authors and genres.

Answer: A

Explanation

4. The author includes the qualification "with some regularity" primarily in order to

The phrase “with some regularity” is doing an important qualification.

The author has just established the orthodox view:

Natural history --- intellectually/morally beneficial
Sentimental fiction --- mentally weakening

Then the author complicates that hierarchy by saying sentimental novels “were, with some regularity, vehicles for pointed commentary” on women's legal disabilities and slavery. So “with some regularity” means:

This was not true of every sentimental novel, but it happened often enough to challenge the simple assumption that sentimental fiction was merely frivolous or intellectually enervating.

That is exactly B.

A. “Some regularity” refers to frequency, not quality. The author isn't saying the political commentary was sometimes good and sometimes bad. They're saying it occurred repeatedly, but not universally.

B. This gets both parts right:

“with some regularity” ----> frequent, but not universal
The commentary on women and slavery ---> subversive content
Its presence complicates the period's simple genre hierarchy

C. Nothing in the sentence concerns readership size. The passage is concerned with the content and implications of sentimental novels.

D. The phrase isn't being used to compare the political content of two types of novels. The passage contrasts sentimental fiction with the supposedly beneficial natural-history reading. More importantly, the point is that sentimental fiction wasn't uniformly what its critics claimed it was.

E. This is tempting because “with some regularity” does imply that the claim isn't universal—but it doesn't support the critics' claim that sentimental novels were frivolous.

In fact, the examples given—commentary on married women's legal disabilities and slavery—are evidence that sentimental fiction could be socially and politically serious.

The key phrase

Think of “with some regularity” as:

“often enough to matter, but not in every case.”

That qualification is important because the author wants to avoid replacing one oversimplification with another. They're not saying all sentimental novels were subversive; they're saying there were enough exceptions to the orthodox characterization to complicate the hierarchy.

Answer: B.