Question 116·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Ecologist Dr. Min-seo Kim contends that reintroducing large grazing mammals—such as bison and wild horses—onto degraded grasslands could be a powerful climate-mitigation strategy. Kim argues that the animals’ hooves break up compacted soil, allowing water to infiltrate more easily, which in turn stimulates root growth and boosts long-term carbon storage below ground.
Text 2
Climate scientist Dr. Riley Blake cautions that large grazers also produce substantial methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Blake notes that while healthier soils do sequester more carbon, methane has a far stronger warming effect over the crucial next few decades. Therefore, Blake concludes, any climate policy centered on resurrecting massive herds should first demonstrate that the methane added to the atmosphere will not outstrip the carbon sequestered in the soil.
Question
Based on the texts, how would Blake most likely critique Kim’s climate-mitigation proposal?
For cross-text connection questions, first quickly jot down the main point of Text 1 and then of Text 2 in a few words (e.g., “Kim: soil carbon good” / “Blake: methane problem”). Then focus on how the second author responds to or modifies the first: do they agree, add a condition, or criticize? When you go to the choices, immediately eliminate any that introduce issues not mentioned in either text, and any that flip the tone (turning criticism into praise or vice versa). Finally, pick the option that most directly captures the second author’s stated concern using the same kind of idea or wording you saw in the passage.
Hints
Locate each author’s main focus
First, summarize in your own words what Kim is proposing in Text 1 and what Blake is concerned about in Text 2. Are they talking about the same aspect of climate change?
Pay attention to the type of gas each text emphasizes
Kim talks about carbon stored in soil. Blake mentions another greenhouse gas. How does Blake describe this gas’s effect on warming, especially over the next few decades?
Decide whether Blake agrees or disagrees overall
Is Blake mainly supporting Kim’s proposal, adding a minor detail, or warning that there is a serious problem with it? Look for words that signal caution or conditions that must be met.
Eliminate choices that introduce new concerns
Cross out any options that mention issues not discussed in either text (for example, topics like transportation or abilities that neither author questions). Then choose from what remains.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand Kim’s main claim (Text 1)
In Text 1, Dr. Kim proposes reintroducing large grazing mammals to degraded grasslands as a climate-mitigation strategy. Kim’s reasoning:
- The animals’ hooves break up compacted soil.
- This allows more water to infiltrate.
- Better water infiltration stimulates root growth.
- Stronger root systems increase long-term carbon storage underground.
So Kim is focused on carbon sequestration in soils as a climate benefit.
Identify Blake’s main concern (Text 2)
In Text 2, Dr. Blake raises a caution about large grazers:
- Large grazers produce substantial methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.
- Blake acknowledges that healthier soils do sequester more carbon.
- However, Blake says methane has a much stronger warming effect over the next few decades.
- Blake concludes that any policy using big herds must prove that methane added will not be greater (in warming impact) than the carbon stored in the soil.
So Blake’s focus is on the warming impact of methane, especially in the near term.
Translate Blake’s view into a likely critique of Kim
To answer the question, we must connect Blake’s concerns to Kim’s proposal:
- Kim presents the plan as a strong climate solution based on carbon storage in soil.
- Blake worries that the methane emissions from the animals might cancel or outweigh that benefit, especially in the crucial next few decades.
- So Blake’s critique would be that Kim’s idea doesn’t adequately account for the near-term warming impact of methane from those animals.
Keep this idea in mind as you scan the answer choices: look for one that mentions methane and short-term warming being overlooked.
Match this critique to the best answer choice
Now compare that understanding to the options:
- Some choices mention logistics or soil benefits, but Blake doesn’t talk about transport problems or deny soil benefits.
- One choice describes Blake as praising Kim’s strategy, but Blake is actually cautious and critical.
- The remaining choice states that Kim’s plan overlooks the near-term warming potential of methane from the reintroduced animals.
That matches Blake’s actual concern in Text 2, so the correct answer is: “By emphasizing that it overlooks the near-term warming potential of methane emitted by the reintroduced animals.”