Question 131·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In her essay on "The Wisdom of Amateurs," ecologist Dr. Lila Grant asserts that observations made by non-professionals supply science with an irreplaceable richness of data. She cites decades-long bird-count programs led by hobbyists as evidence, arguing that the vast geographic and temporal scope made possible by volunteer participation outweighs the occasional inaccuracy in any individual report.
Text 2
A recent editorial questions the reliability of so-called "citizen science," pointing out that misidentifications submitted through smartphone apps have led to the publication of several erroneous range maps for plant species. The piece argues that unless strict expert vetting is applied, such participatory projects risk doing more harm than good by propagating misinformation.
Question
Based on the passages, how would Dr. Grant most likely reply to the editorial's concerns?
For cross-text connection questions, quickly summarize each text’s main claim and attitude (supportive, skeptical, etc.) in a word or short phrase. Then identify the specific point of tension or disagreement (here, the value of citizen science given possible errors). Ask yourself, “If the first author answered the second, what would they say using their own reasoning?” Finally, eliminate choices that: (1) contradict the author’s clear stance, (2) introduce new ideas or examples the author never mentioned, or (3) ignore the shared topic connecting the texts. This approach keeps you anchored to the passages instead of guessing based on outside knowledge.
Hints
Locate each author’s main idea
First, restate in your own words what Dr. Grant believes about citizen science and what the editorial believes. Is Dr. Grant positive or negative about volunteers? Is the editorial positive or negative?
Focus on how Dr. Grant handles errors
In Text 1, Dr. Grant mentions occasional inaccuracies. What does she say about how important those inaccuracies are compared with the overall data volunteers provide?
Eliminate answers that add new claims or flip her view
Cross out any answer that has Dr. Grant criticizing citizen science, changing sides, or bringing up types of evidence (like professional failures or automation) that are never mentioned in her essay.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand Dr. Grant’s main point (Text 1)
Focus on what Dr. Grant actually claims:
- She says observations from non-professionals give science an irreplaceable richness of data.
- Her example: decades-long bird-count programs run by hobbyists.
- Her key reasoning: the vast geographic and temporal scope made possible by volunteers outweighs the occasional inaccuracy in any individual report.
So she acknowledges that individual reports can be wrong, but she believes that having lots of data across many places and years is more important and more valuable overall.
Understand the editorial’s concern (Text 2)
Now look at what the editorial is worried about:
- It questions the reliability of citizen science.
- It points to misidentifications in app submissions that led to erroneous range maps for plant species.
- It claims that unless strict expert vetting is applied, these projects may do more harm than good by spreading misinformation.
So the editorial’s main fear is: errors from volunteers can create and spread incorrect scientific information unless tightly checked by experts.
Infer how Dr. Grant would respond to that concern
To answer the question, imagine Dr. Grant answering the editorial:
- She already accepts that individual reports can be inaccurate.
- But she argues that the huge amount of data gathered by many volunteers over wide areas and long periods is more important than those individual mistakes.
- So her reply would not be to deny that errors exist, but to say that the scale of the volunteer data helps balance out or correct those errors, reducing the overall risk.
Any correct answer must match her pro–citizen science stance and her specific idea that many data points offset the occasional mistake.
Match that reasoning to the answer choices
Check each option against what you just inferred:
- The correct choice must show Dr. Grant still supporting citizen science, acknowledging individual mistakes, and emphasizing that the breadth of volunteer data lessens the danger described by the editorial.
The only option that does this is:
B) She would argue that the breadth of data supplied by volunteers ultimately corrects for individual mistakes, thus mitigating the risk emphasized in the editorial.