Question 107·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
To have a significant impact on declining pollinator populations, conservationists must focus their efforts on setting aside vast, contiguous tracts of land. According to ecology professor Marta Henson, small or scattered habitats simply cannot sustain the wide-ranging insects essential for healthy ecosystems.
Text 2
In a longitudinal study of suburban neighborhoods, Ramón Delgado and colleagues installed a network of “micro-gardens” the size of parking spaces along residential streets. Over three years, the number and diversity of native pollinators visiting these blocks rose by 62 percent, leading the researchers to argue that even modest green patches can collectively function as an effective refuge.
Based on the texts, what would the researchers in Text 2 most likely say about the underlined claim in Text 1?
For cross-text questions, first quickly restate each text’s main point in a few words (for example, “Text 1: only big habitats work; Text 2: many small patches can work”). Then decide the relationship between them (agree, disagree, qualify). Next, read the question stem carefully—here it asks what one author would say about the other’s claim—so you know whose perspective you must use. Eliminate any answer that introduces new, unsupported topics or that contradicts clear evidence from the relevant text, and choose the option that best captures how the second text’s evidence supports, weakens, or refines the first text’s claim.
Hints
Locate the key claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined sentence and the one that follows it. What does Text 1 say about small or scattered habitats versus large, contiguous ones?
Summarize Text 2’s main finding
In your own words, what happened to the number and diversity of pollinators when the micro-gardens were added? What conclusion do the researchers draw from that result?
Determine how Text 2 would respond to Text 1
Ask yourself: Does the evidence in Text 2 support, weaken, or complicate Text 1’s claim about small habitats? Would the researchers from Text 2 fully agree, fully disagree, or modify that claim?
Test the choices for consistency with both texts
Eliminate any choice that introduces new ideas not mentioned in either text (for example, about ease of management or agricultural fields), or that contradicts the clear results reported in Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the claim in Text 1
Look closely at the underlined sentence in Text 1:
"To have a significant impact on declining pollinator populations, conservationists must focus their efforts on setting aside vast, contiguous tracts of land."
Then the next sentence says that small or scattered habitats cannot sustain the needed insects. So Text 1 is making a strong, absolute claim: only large, continuous areas of habitat can significantly help pollinators; small or scattered patches are seen as ineffective.
Identify what Text 2 shows
Text 2 describes a study in suburban neighborhoods where researchers created a network of very small "micro-gardens."
Key details:
- The micro-gardens are small (“the size of parking spaces”).
- They are spread along residential streets (a network of patches).
- Over three years, number and diversity of pollinators increased by 62 percent.
- The researchers conclude that even modest green patches can collectively function as an effective refuge.
So Text 2 presents evidence that many small, connected patches can support pollinators.
Compare the viewpoints of Text 1 and Text 2
Now put the two ideas side by side:
- Text 1: Small or scattered habitats “simply cannot sustain” key pollinators; conservation must focus on vast, contiguous land.
- Text 2: A network of small patches led to a large increase in pollinators and can collectively be an effective refuge.
This means the researchers in Text 2 would disagree with the claim in Text 1. They would say the claim is too absolute and ignores evidence that small, interconnected patches can work.
Match that comparison to the answer choices
Now check each option against that comparison:
- (A) says Text 1’s claim is a “pragmatic solution” about management ease. Text 2 never talks about ease of management.
- (B) claims Text 1 reflects “current consensus” and that studies on small habitats are inconclusive, but Text 2 gives clear, positive results from small habitats.
- (D) says Text 1 “exaggerates” habitat needs and that most species thrive in agricultural fields, which is not mentioned in either text.
- (C) says the claim overlooks evidence that small, interconnected patches can support pollinators — which is exactly what Text 2 provides.
Therefore, the correct answer is: It overlooks evidence that small habitat patches, when interconnected, can substantially support pollinators.