Question 105·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Ornithologist Kavita Parikh argues that pervasive artificial lighting in cities disrupts avian biology. In a controlled experiment with American robins, Parikh recorded that street-lamp–illumined males began their dawn chorus 65 minutes earlier than males in naturally dark parks. She contends that the lost rest time induces chronic fatigue: pairs in lit territories produced, on average, 20 percent fewer fledglings than their dark-sky counterparts. Parikh concludes that urban light pollution diminishes reproductive success in songbirds.
Text 2
Ecologist Mateo Hernández questions whether artificial light is necessarily harmful. Analyzing ten years of data for 15 urban bird species across four continents, Hernández found that males singing earlier—often under artificial light—attracted mates sooner and secured longer foraging windows. His team documented a 12 percent increase in fledgling survival in well-lit districts compared with darker neighborhoods, even after controlling for food availability and predator density. Hernández proposes that, for many species, anthropogenic illumination can confer adaptive advantages.
Based on the texts, how would Hernández (Text 2) most likely respond to Parikh’s conclusion in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, state each author’s main claim in one sentence (positive, negative, or mixed effect). Then answer the specific task—here, how Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s conclusion—by selecting the choice that mirrors Text 2’s stated reasoning and evidence. Eliminate options that introduce critiques or causal explanations (methodology attacks, alternative variables) that Text 2 never actually makes.
Hints
Identify each author’s bottom-line claim
Reread the final sentences of each text. What does Parikh ultimately say artificial light does to reproductive success, and what does Hernández ultimately say about the effects of anthropogenic light?
Pay attention to earlier singing and outcomes
Both texts mention earlier singing under artificial light. For each author, what result is linked to that earlier singing—negative outcomes, positive outcomes, or something else?
Look for direct disagreement, not a side issue
The question asks how Hernández would respond specifically to Parikh’s conclusion. Which choice captures a direct challenge to her claim about the effect of artificial light on reproductive success, using the kind of evidence Hernández presents?
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify Parikh’s conclusion in Text 1
Focus on what Parikh concludes, not just the details of her experiment.
- She observes that males under street lamps start their dawn chorus 65 minutes earlier.
- She links this to “lost rest time” and “chronic fatigue.”
- She reports that pairs in lit territories produced, on average, 20 percent fewer fledglings.
- Her conclusion: urban light pollution diminishes reproductive success in songbirds.
So Parikh sees artificial light as harmful to reproduction.
Clarify Hernández’s main claim in Text 2
Now summarize Hernández’s perspective.
- He questions whether artificial light is necessarily harmful.
- He finds that males singing earlier—often under artificial light—attracted mates sooner and secured longer foraging windows.
- He documents a 12 percent increase in fledgling survival in well-lit districts.
- He proposes that, for many species, anthropogenic illumination can confer adaptive advantages.
So Hernández associates artificial light and earlier singing with benefits, not harm.
Determine how Hernández would respond to Parikh
Compare their conclusions directly.
- Parikh: artificial light → earlier singing → fatigue → fewer fledglings → reduced reproductive success.
- Hernández: artificial light → earlier singing → earlier mates + more foraging → higher fledgling survival → improved reproductive success.
Hernández’s evidence points in the opposite direction from Parikh’s conclusion about reproductive outcomes.
Match that response to the answer choices
Choose the option that reflects Hernández’s stance: artificial light can lead to earlier singing and is associated with better reproductive outcomes.
Therefore, the correct answer is: By contending that artificial light triggers earlier singing that ultimately boosts, rather than diminishes, reproductive success.