Question 12·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In 2012, ecologist Maria López monitored vegetation in Utah’s Cottonwood Reserve after gray wolves naturally recolonized the area. Over the next five years, deer density fell by 60 percent, and the average height of young aspen tripled. López noted that decades of regulated hunting and targeted deer removals had never produced such marked changes.
Hence, the presence of large predators is indispensable for the recovery of plant biodiversity in temperate forests.
Text 2
A later study led by botanist Alan Chen examined six reserves in the Great Lakes region. Two of the reserves housed wolves, whereas the other four relied on periodic deer culls and exclusion fences. After seven years, rates of tree regeneration and understory diversity were nearly identical across all reserves. Chen concluded that while wolves can facilitate forest recovery, carefully managed human interventions can, in many cases, substitute for large predators.
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, identify the exact strength of the claim in Text 1 (absolute words like “indispensable” matter). Then restate Text 2’s findings and conclusion and decide whether they support, qualify, or contradict that exact claim. Choose the option that matches both the direction (agree/disagree) and the specific evidence in Text 2.
Hints
Pin down the key word in Text 1
Look closely at the underlined sentence in Text 1. What does the word “indispensable” imply about whether large predators can be replaced?
Compare outcomes in Text 2
In Text 2, were the reserves with wolves doing noticeably better than the reserves with culls and fences, or were the outcomes similar?
Translate Chen’s conclusion into agree vs. disagree
If Text 2 says human interventions can substitute for predators in many cases, would Chen accept an absolute claim that predators are required?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the underlined claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined sentence in Text 1:
“Hence, the presence of large predators is indispensable for the recovery of plant biodiversity in temperate forests.”
- “Indispensable” means absolutely necessary; cannot be replaced.
- So Text 1 is claiming recovery cannot happen without large predators.
Extract the key comparison in Text 2
Text 2 compares reserves with wolves to reserves using periodic deer culls and exclusion fences.
After seven years, tree regeneration and understory diversity were nearly identical across all reserves. So, in this study, reserves without wolves (but with human management) did about as well as reserves with wolves.
Use Chen’s conclusion to decide agree vs. disagree
Chen concludes that wolves can facilitate recovery, but that human interventions can, in many cases, substitute for large predators.
If substitutes can produce similar outcomes, then large predators are not indispensable in the absolute sense claimed in Text 1.
Select the option that matches Text 2’s stance and evidence
The best choice should (1) challenge the absolute word “indispensable” and (2) cite Text 2’s evidence that culls/fences produced similar outcomes to wolf reserves.
Therefore, the correct answer is: By contesting the claim, citing evidence that culls and fencing produced outcomes similar to those in wolf reserves, suggesting predators are not strictly essential.