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, first isolate the key claim or opinion in Text 1—especially strong words like “always,” “never,” or “indispensable.” Then decide whether Text 2 would agree, disagree, or partially agree with that specific claim, and identify the exact evidence in Text 2 that drives that stance. Finally, choose the option that reflects both the direction of agreement and the reason, and eliminate choices that shift the focus to critiques or conditions not stated 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” say about how necessary large predators are for forest recovery?
Compare wolves vs. human interventions in Text 2
In Text 2, what happened in the reserves that had wolves compared with those that used deer culls and exclusion fences? Were the results very different or very similar?
Connect Chen’s conclusion to the claim in Text 1
If Text 2 says something else can substitute for large predators, does that support or challenge the idea that large predators are absolutely required?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the underlined claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined sentence: “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 not just saying predators help; it is saying recovery cannot happen without large predators.
Identify what Text 2’s study actually found
Key comparison in Text 2:
- Two reserves had wolves.
- Four reserves used periodic deer culls and exclusion fences instead of wolves.
- After seven years, tree regeneration and understory diversity were nearly identical across all reserves.
So, reserves without wolves but with human interventions recovered about as much as reserves with wolves.
Interpret Chen’s conclusion and how it relates to “indispensable”
Chen concludes that wolves can facilitate forest recovery, but human interventions can, in many cases, substitute for large predators.
If something can be substituted for, then it is not indispensable. So Text 2’s author would challenge Text 1’s claim of strict necessity.
Choose the option that matches Text 2’s stance
The correct option should say that Text 2 disagrees with the idea that large predators are indispensable, because Text 2 provides evidence that culls and fencing can produce comparable recovery.
Therefore, the correct answer is: By contesting the claim, citing evidence that culls and fencing can yield plant biodiversity gains comparable to those achieved where large predators are present, indicating such predators are not strictly essential.