A question about two texts tests how one researcher would respond to another’s conclusion. Use the question to identify who answers whom, then put the conclusion being answered in a few words. Read the responding researcher’s findings and connect the evidence to the claim. Ask whether the reply disagrees with the claim, adds limits to it, or applies it to new cases. The reason helps you choose between replies that take the same side, so keep it tied to that researcher’s evidence.
Hints
- Hint 1
Find the conclusion Hernández is answering. Parikh’s final sentence gives the claim, and Hernández’s final sentence gives his view.
- Hint 2
How does Text 2 connect the timing of singing with mating and time spent finding food?
- Hint 3
Check the fledgling-survival result in Text 2. How does that result bear on Parikh’s claim about reproductive success?
Step-by-step
Match the response to its evidence
Step 1Identify the claim Hernández must answer
Parikh concludes that urban light pollution diminishes reproductive success in songbirds, so we need Hernández’s response to that claim. What supports it? Her robins in lit territories sing 65 minutes earlier and produce 20 percent fewer fledglings, which she links to lost rest and fatigue. The target is harm to reproduction, not the finding that birds sing earlier.
- Step 2
Read Hernández’s evidence about reproduction
Hernández studied 15 species, rather than only robins. What does his evidence say about reproduction? Earlier singers attracted mates sooner and secured longer foraging windows, and well-lit districts showed a 12 percent increase in fledgling survival. The longer foraging windows mean more time to find food, and the survival finding gives him evidence of a reproductive benefit.
- Step 3
Find his view and his own reason
What view follows from those benefits? Hernández would reject Parikh’s broad claim of reproductive harm, because his study supports advantages from lighting. He found the survival increase even after controlling for food availability and predator density. The reply about food availability or predator density uses those factors to explain Parikh’s lower counts, which Hernández never does.
- Step 4
Choose the response that matches his evidence
The reply about does not necessarily improve fledgling survival leaves out Hernández’s survival finding, while cannot support conclusions denies a link his study supports. The reply about boosts, rather than diminishes, reproductive success names the gains in mating and survival that Hernández calls adaptive advantages. His phrase for many species means he isn’t claiming a benefit for every songbird. Choice D.