A question about two texts tests how one author would respond to a claim in the other. Start with the question to see who answers whom, and use the underline to find the exact claim. Put that claim and its reason in a few words, then do the same for the other text. Ask whether that author would accept, limit, or reject the claim. The author’s own reason matters more than whether a response sounds like agreement or disagreement.
Hints
- Hint 1
Read the underlined sentence alongside the sentence immediately before it. Separate the claim from the reason Text 1 gives for it.
- Hint 2
Look at the opening contrast in Text 2. What does the author say on each side of that contrast?
- Hint 3
How do the São Paulo and Canadian prairie examples support Text 2’s last sentence? Use that link to judge the underlined claim.
Step-by-step
Find the view and its reason
Step 1Pin down the claim
The question has the author of Text 2 answer the underlined claim in Text 1, so we’re deciding how Text 2’s author would respond to that sentence. That sentence says the boom shows Miyawaki’s singular influence on contemporary greening projects. Why does Text 1 give him that credit? Enthusiasts cite his studies to seek funding, so Text 1 gives one scientist the key credit for the boom.
- Step 2
Find Text 2’s evidence
What does Text 2 accept, and what does it add? Miyawaki’s research certainly popularized small-scale reforestation, but São Paulo’s woodlands existed decades before Miyawaki’s work became widely known outside Japan. Indigenous communities had also long treated dense, mixed-species plantings as a means of soil restoration. These examples bring other planting traditions into the picture.
- Step 3
Name the view
How far would Text 2 accept that credit? Its phrase hardly the sole catalyst means Miyawaki helped, but other sources mattered too. Text 2 limits the claim: his role doesn’t make him the only source of the boom. The choices about accepting the claim and agreeing with the claim still give Miyawaki sole credit, so they miss the limit Text 2 puts on it.
- Step 4
Check the reason
Text 2’s convergence of regional traditions describes several origins, not conflicting methods. The phrase incompatible with Indigenous stewardship practices means the methods can’t work together, which the text never says. Overstates Miyawaki’s role and neglects earlier, independent origins name the problem Text 2 raises, so that response gives the author’s own reason. Choice C.