Question 117·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 City planners across North America have recently embraced the planting of “microforests”—densely packed groves of native species grown on tiny parcels of urban land. The concept was pioneered by Japanese botanist Akira Miyawaki, whose experiments demonstrated that such plantings mature quickly and support rich biodiversity. Enthusiasts often cite his studies when seeking municipal funding. For this reason, the present boom in urban microforests shows Miyawaki’s singular influence on contemporary greening projects.
Text 2 While Miyawaki’s research certainly popularized small-scale reforestation, it is hardly the sole catalyst for today’s microforest movement. Landscape architects in São Paulo experimented with pocket woodlands decades before Miyawaki’s work became widely known outside Japan, and Indigenous stewardship practices on the Canadian prairies long treated dense, mixed-species plantings as a means of soil restoration. The current spread of microforests, then, reflects a convergence of regional traditions and urgent climate goals as much as any one scientist’s legacy.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, first isolate the specific claim or sentence in one text that the question asks about, and paraphrase it in simple language. Then read the relevant parts of the other text asking, “Does this author agree, partially agree, or disagree with that claim?” Look for clear signal phrases like "hardly the sole," "while X, it is also Y," or "in contrast" that show stance. Finally, pick the answer that best captures that stance using only what’s actually stated in the second text, and eliminate choices that add new ideas (like limits or conflicts) not supported by the passage or that say the author "accepts" or "agrees" when the tone is clearly critical or qualifying.
Hints
Clarify what Text 1 is claiming
Reread the underlined sentence in Text 1 and restate it in your own words. What is Text 1 saying about how important Miyawaki is to the microforest boom?
Look for agreement or disagreement in Text 2
In Text 2, find the sentence that directly comments on whether Miyawaki is the only or main cause of the microforest movement. Does it support or push back against Text 1’s claim?
Notice the additional examples in Text 2
Text 2 mentions São Paulo architects and Indigenous stewardship practices. How do these examples relate to the idea that one scientist has a "singular" influence?
Eliminate answer choices that don’t match Text 2
Ask of each option: Does Text 2 really accept Text 1’s claim, or does it qualify or reject it? Does Text 2 ever mention municipal funding limits, incompatibility with Indigenous practices, or a shift from urban design to biodiversity as the main issue?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the underlined claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined sentence in Text 1: it says the current boom in urban microforests shows Miyawaki’s singular influence on contemporary greening projects.
Paraphrase it: Text 1 is claiming that Miyawaki is the uniquely important or main driving force behind today’s microforest trend.
Determine Text 2’s view of Miyawaki’s role
Now look at how Text 2 talks about Miyawaki:
- It concedes that his research "certainly popularized small-scale reforestation."
- But it immediately adds that his work is "hardly the sole catalyst for today’s microforest movement."
- It lists other sources: São Paulo landscape architects and Indigenous stewardship practices.
- It concludes that the spread of microforests reflects "a convergence of regional traditions and urgent climate goals as much as any one scientist’s legacy."
So Text 2 clearly disagrees with the idea that Miyawaki alone explains the boom.
Match that disagreement to the answer choices
Now compare that stance to the options:
- Some answer choices say the author of Text 2 would accept or agree with Text 1’s claim.
- Others suggest the author would challenge or limit the claim in specific ways.
You want the option that says Text 2 thinks Text 1 gives Miyawaki too much credit and fails to recognize the other independent origins and influences the passage describes.
Select the answer that best fits Text 2’s perspective
The only option that fits is:
By arguing that the claim overstates Miyawaki’s role and neglects earlier, independent origins of the practice.
This matches Text 2’s points that Miyawaki is not the sole catalyst and that microforests also come from São Paulo experiments and Indigenous stewardship traditions.