Question 114·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In an article on ecological history, researcher Carla Medina argues that nineteenth-century settlers in the North American Great Plains consistently depicted wolves (Canis lupus) as malicious predators bent on destroying livestock and threatening human safety. Medina bases her claim on dozens of letters and diary entries in which settlers describe wolves as “fiends,” “ruthless marauders,” and “the bane of the prairie ranch.” She concludes that the intensity of this language established an enduring cultural narrative of the wolf as an irredeemable villain, a narrative that continues to influence present-day wildlife policy.
Text 2
Environmental historian Rahul Desai, analyzing many of the same primary sources, contends that Medina’s reading overlooks passages expressing grudging admiration for wolves’ intelligence and ecological value. Desai points out that several settlers praised wolves for keeping rodent populations in check and even marveled at the animals’ “commendable loyalty to kin.” He suggests that while fear of livestock losses certainly fueled negative portrayals, settlers’ attitudes were more ambivalent than Medina implies, blending apprehension with respect.
Based on the texts, how would Desai (Text 2) most likely respond to Medina’s (Text 1) conclusion about the cultural narrative of the wolf?
For cross-text connection questions, identify Text 1’s conclusion, then pinpoint exactly how Text 2 qualifies or challenges it using contrast signals (e.g., “overlooks,” “more ambivalent”). Choose the option that mirrors Text 2’s specific correction (often adding nuance), and eliminate choices that overstate agreement/disagreement or shift to a different issue than the one Text 2 actually raises.
Hints
Clarify Medina’s conclusion first
Reread the last sentence of Text 1. What does Medina claim the settlers’ intense language created about wolves?
Find Desai’s main disagreement
In Text 2, locate what Desai says Medina “overlooks” and what he means by settlers being “more ambivalent than Medina implies.”
Restate Desai in one sentence
Write a one-sentence summary of Desai’s view of settlers’ attitudes (include both sides of the attitude). Then match that to a choice.
Watch for overstatements or mis-weighting
Eliminate choices that (1) claim Desai mostly agrees with Medina, (2) make settlers’ attitudes sound purely positive or purely negative, or (3) shift to a claim Desai never makes.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Medina’s conclusion (Text 1)
Medina claims settlers consistently portrayed wolves as malicious threats, using intensely hostile labels (e.g., “fiends,” “ruthless marauders”). She concludes that this intensity helped create an enduring cultural narrative of the wolf as an irredeemable villain.
Identify Desai’s critique (Text 2)
Desai says Medina overlooks passages showing admiration for wolves’ intelligence and ecological value. He argues settlers’ attitudes were more ambivalent than Medina implies, blending apprehension with respect.
Predict Desai’s response to Medina’s conclusion
Because Desai emphasizes ambivalence (fear and respect), he would resist Medina’s framing of settlers as uniformly hostile and would say her conclusion is overly one-sided because it ignores positive evidence.
Evaluate the choices against Desai’s stated claims
- A) Shifts the issue to immediate livestock fears being the main driver; Desai’s critique isn’t that Medina misidentifies the cause, but that she ignores admiring passages and thus misses ambivalence.
- B) Claims neutrality in other entries; Text 2 doesn’t argue that the rest are neutral—Desai’s point is specifically that the record includes both negative and admiring language.
- C) Overcorrects by saying attitudes were mostly favorable; Desai explicitly keeps the negative side in view (fear of livestock losses) and describes attitudes as mixed, not predominantly positive.
- D) Matches Desai directly: Medina is too one-sided because she ignores evidence of settlers’ respect/admiration alongside fear.
Therefore, the correct answer is:
He would argue that Medina exaggerates the settlers’ hostility by ignoring evidence of their simultaneous respect for wolves, thus portraying an overly one-sided narrative.