Hi @tyler808, when looking at these kinds of questions, it is important to understand what each of the passages is "doing." By that, I mean understanding the main point, and why the author wrote the passage. Is this a piece of journalism, a persuasive argument, an academic text, or a historical narrative? Once we have a rough idea of what each passage is doing we will also need to understand what it's argument or main point is.
Passage A lays out a definition (albeit one that the author admits is fairly imprecise) and then applies that definition to a particular case (Romani peoples) in order to highlight the imprecision of that definition.
Passage B briefly introduces a definition, and then immediately notes a flaw in it, specifically when applied to the case of the Roma. The author then clearly shows that the Roma are indeed a minority.
Passage A appears to be mostly concerned with pointing out the flaws in a definition, while passage B is more concerned with the minority status of the Romani, and how a flawed definition has failed to recognize their minority status. Passage B is more argumentative than passage A as well. We are looking for an answer choice that reflects there distinctions.
A does look fairly strong. The analogy for passage A tells us that the lack of a precise definition causes problems for a group (welders). The analogy for passage B makes an argument for including that group within the definition. At a high level this is what passage A and B are doing respectively, and A looks correct. However, let's look at b-e.
In B, our analogy for passage B is extremely broad, while passage b itself is making a fairly narrow argument. We can safely eliminate B.
In C, the analogy for passage A is calling for a change in the definition, which goes beyond what passage A states.
In D, both analogies are way off, and the analogy form passage B is not argumentative.
In E p, the analogy for passage b is an argument against, rather than an argument for.
