A question about two texts tests how one writer would respond to another’s claim. Use the question to see who answers whom, then sum up what the other writer argues and why. Read the responding writer’s text for what they accept and what they challenge. Name the stance: reject means the claim is wrong or unsupported; qualify means it’s true only in part or under certain conditions. A critique must use that writer’s own reason.
Hints
- Hint 1
The question asks for Blake’s critique, so look in Text 2 for the reason behind Blake’s caution.
- Hint 2
What does Blake accept in the middle sentence of Text 2, and what concern follows?
- Hint 3
Apply Blake’s final sentence to Kim’s proposal. What does Blake want demonstrated before a policy built around large herds goes ahead?
Step-by-step
Find the stance and its reason
Step 1Identify the claim Blake is judging
Start with how would Blake most likely critique Kim’s climate-mitigation proposal?: we’re using Blake’s views to judge Kim’s plan. What does Kim claim, and why? Kim says returning grazers could help the climate because their hooves improve soil, which encourages root growth and boosts long-term carbon storage below ground. Kim’s case rests on the soil benefits.
- Step 2
Find the limit Blake adds
Does Blake deny those soil benefits? Blake accepts that healthier soils do sequester more carbon, but adds that methane has a far stronger warming effect over the crucial next few decades. The timing matters: Kim points to long-term carbon storage, while Blake is concerned with warming sooner. Blake says the policy must show that added methane will not outstrip the carbon sequestered in the soil, meaning its warming won’t outweigh the benefit of storing carbon. Blake qualifies the plan: it could help, but only if its gains outweigh its warming costs.
- Step 3
Match the critique to Blake’s reason
Which choice gives Blake’s own reason to critique Kim’s climate-mitigation proposal? The objections about logistical difficulty and the animals’ ability to aerate soil aren’t concerns Blake raises. The praise for methane reduction reverses the problem, since Blake says grazers add methane. The choice about near-term warming potential names the warming cost Kim leaves out, without claiming that the plan must fail. Choice A.