Question 125·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Proponents of expansive offshore wind farms point to comprehensive computer simulations indicating that replacing a fleet of coastal fossil-fuel power plants with wind turbines could lower a region’s annual carbon emissions by nearly 30 percent. The models incorporate average wind speeds, turbine efficiency, and projected electricity demand, leading advocates to conclude that large-scale offshore wind development is an indispensable component of any realistic decarbonization strategy.
Text 2 Economist Lina Osei cautions that decarbonization projections based solely on computer simulations ignore critical real-world constraints. Analyzing operating data from existing offshore wind installations, Osei and colleagues found that because electrical grids currently lack sufficient large-capacity storage, fossil-fuel plants must remain online to balance supply and demand, limiting the observed emissions reduction to roughly 10 percent. Osei argues that until grid-storage shortcomings are remedied, forecasts that omit this factor will consistently overstate the climate benefits of offshore wind farms.
Based on the texts, how would Osei, the author of Text 2, most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 that offshore wind farms could lower annual carbon emissions by nearly 30 percent?
For cross-text questions, first quickly summarize each text’s main point in your own words, especially any specific numbers or claims. Then focus on the relationship: Does the second text support, qualify, or challenge the first? When you answer “How would author 2 respond to a claim in author 1?”, think: agree, disagree, or modify—and why. Finally, eliminate choices that change the topic, introduce ideas not in either text, or exaggerate the tone (turning a careful critique into total rejection), and select the option that most precisely reflects the second author’s stated reasoning about the first author’s claim.
Hints
Locate the claim in Text 1
Underline the specific sentence in Text 1 that mentions how much offshore wind farms could lower carbon emissions and notice what that estimate is based on.
Find Osei’s critique in Text 2
In Text 2, look for where Osei explains what projections based only on simulations are missing and what percentage reduction she finds in real-world data.
Compare the numbers and reasoning
Ask yourself: Does Osei’s evidence support, weaken, or modify the 30% claim from Text 1? Is she agreeing with that figure, or saying it is too high under current conditions?
Eliminate extreme or off-topic responses
Cross out any options where Osei suddenly talks mainly about costs instead of emissions, fully supports the 30% claim, or calls for completely abandoning offshore wind—none of those happen in Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the key claim in Text 1
Focus on what proponents in Text 1 are saying offshore wind can do:
- They rely on computer simulations.
- Those simulations say that replacing coastal fossil-fuel plants with wind turbines could lower annual carbon emissions by nearly 30 percent.
- Based on this, they think offshore wind is essential to any realistic decarbonization strategy.
So the important claim you’ll need to compare is the “nearly 30 percent” emissions reduction based on simulations.
Understand Osei’s main argument in Text 2
Now look closely at what Osei says about such projections:
- She warns that projections based solely on computer simulations ignore critical real-world constraints.
- Using operating data from existing wind installations, she finds that because grids lack enough large-capacity storage, fossil-fuel plants must stay online.
- This reality limits emissions reductions to roughly 10 percent, not close to 30 percent.
- She concludes that forecasts that leave out this storage issue will overstate the climate benefits of offshore wind.
So Osei is not rejecting offshore wind, but she is saying that simulations without storage limits built in give inflated numbers compared with real-world data.
Decide how Osei would respond to the 30% claim
Combine what you saw in both texts:
- Text 1: simulations say “nearly 30 percent” emissions reduction.
- Text 2: real-world data show only about 10 percent, and Osei says simulations that ignore storage constraints overstate benefits.
Ask yourself: Would Osei agree with the 30% number, shift the discussion to a different benefit, or criticize the 30% number as unrealistic under current conditions? Her emphasis on overstatement and lower observed reductions should guide your answer choice.
Match Osei’s stance to the best answer choice
Now compare each option to Osei’s actual view:
- She does not agree that simulations and real-world data both support 30%.
- She does not switch the topic to costs, and she does not say to abandon offshore wind.
- She does argue that simulations leave out grid-storage limitations, causing them to exaggerate emissions reductions, which her data show are much smaller than 30% (about 10%).
The only choice that accurately reflects this is B) By contending that simulations overlook current grid-storage limitations, and thus the actual emissions reduction is far smaller than 30 percent.