Question 129·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Writing in a widely cited 2008 article, food historian Linda Maurier contends that the arrival of the potato in sixteenth-century Europe “single-handedly broke the cycle of subsistence crises.” According to Maurier, the tuber’s extraordinary yield per acre meant that even modest plots could sustain whole families, thereby eliminating the major cause of the continent’s recurring famines.
Text 2
Economic historian Óscar Nieto, drawing on parish death registers and grain-price data published in 2022, argues that Maurier’s conclusion is overdrawn. While he concedes that potato cultivation boosted total food output, Nieto notes that famines persisted well into the eighteenth century in regions where landowners restricted tenant access to arable land or where war disrupted trade. He further points out that comparable gains in rye and barley yields occurred during the same period, suggesting that the potato was only one factor among many shaping Europe’s food security.
Question
How does Text 2 most directly respond to the claim made in Text 1 about the potato’s role in ending European famines?
For cross-text relationship questions, first underline the main claim or conclusion in Text 1, then mark any clear attitude words in Text 2 (like “agrees,” “overdrawn,” “however,” “although,” “nevertheless”). Ask yourself: Does Text 2 mainly support, qualify, or challenge Text 1’s claim? Next, jot a quick note in your own words (e.g., “Text 2: says claim is exaggerated; mentions other causes”). Then go to the answer choices and eliminate any that (1) describe the opposite stance (support vs. criticize), (2) introduce causes or evidence types not mentioned in Text 2, or (3) ignore the specific reasons Text 2 gives. This top-down approach is faster and keeps you from getting trapped comparing answer choices to each other instead of to the texts.
Hints
Clarify Text 1’s claim
Reread the sentence in Text 1 with the phrase “single-handedly broke the cycle of subsistence crises.” What does that suggest about how important the potato was compared with other possible causes?
Focus on key words in Text 2
Look at the verbs and adjectives describing Nieto’s view: words like “argues,” “overdrawn,” and “concedes.” Do these show agreement, partial agreement, or disagreement with Text 1?
Notice the kinds of reasons Text 2 gives
List the specific reasons Nieto mentions for continued famines and changes in food supply (for example, land access, war, other crops). How do these reasons relate to the idea that the potato alone ended famines?
Compare with each option carefully
When you read each answer choice, ask: Does this describe Text 2 as mostly supporting, mostly rejecting, or modifying Text 1’s claim? Eliminate any choice that mentions evidence types or causes that never appear in Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s main claim
Look at the key phrase in Text 1: the potato “single-handedly broke the cycle of subsistence crises.” That means Maurier is arguing the potato alone was responsible for ending recurring famines in Europe. So Text 1 gives a very strong, almost exclusive role to the potato in stopping famines.
Determine Text 2’s attitude toward that claim
Text 2 starts by saying Nieto “argues that Maurier’s conclusion is overdrawn.” That tells you immediately that he thinks Maurier is exaggerating the potato’s role. Then he:
- Admits potatoes increased food output (“he concedes that potato cultivation boosted total food output”), but
- Emphasizes that famines still happened where landowners restricted land or war disrupted trade, and
- Notes other grains (rye and barley) also had big yield gains. This shows Text 2 views the potato as only one of several factors, not the sole cause of the end of famines.
Describe the relationship between the texts
Now connect the two:
- Text 1: Potato “single-handedly” ended subsistence crises.
- Text 2: That conclusion is “overdrawn”; famines continued because of land access and wars; other crops also improved. So Text 2 partly agrees that potatoes helped, but mainly qualifies and challenges Text 1’s claim by bringing in additional economic and political factors and other crops.
Match that relationship to the answer choices
Check each option against this relationship:
- The correct choice must say that Text 2 thinks Text 1 exaggerates the potato’s role and that Text 2 brings in other factors (like landownership, war, and other grains).
Choice A says exactly this: It contends that Text 1 overstates the potato’s influence by emphasizing additional economic and political factors that prolonged food shortages. That matches the way Text 2 calls Maurier’s conclusion “overdrawn,” points to landowners and war, and mentions other grains. Therefore, A is the correct answer.