Question 132·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Clara Alvarez’s 2018 book Endless Blue is a heartfelt call to protect coral reefs, but it suffers from a crippling geographic myopia. By concentrating almost exclusively on the Great Barrier Reef, Alvarez ignores data from the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean that reveal varied bleaching patterns and surprising pockets of resilience. A truly global survey would have forced her to temper her conclusion that coral ecosystems are uniformly hurtling toward collapse.
Text 2
Readers of Endless Blue will undoubtedly admire Alvarez’s meticulous compilation of field measurements, yet many will question her insistence that “most reefs will be functionally extinct by 2050.” The projection relies on worst-case emission scenarios and gives scant attention to emerging mitigation strategies, such as selective coral breeding and local pollution controls, that scientists believe could slow or even reverse current trends.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view Alvarez’s Endless Blue?
For cross-text questions, first read each text separately and quickly note the author’s overall attitude (positive, negative, or mixed) and the specific main criticism. Use signal words like "but," "yet," and "however" to find where praise turns into critique. Then, go to the answer choices and check each half against your notes: if either half includes ideas or complaints not mentioned in the passage, eliminate it. The correct choice will be the only one where both halves accurately capture the distinct views in Text 1 and Text 2 without adding extra claims.
Hints
Find the main criticism in Text 1
In Text 1, focus on the part of the first sentence after the word "but" and the sentence beginning with "By concentrating"—what specific limitation of Alvarez’s book does the author point out?
Find the main criticism in Text 2
In Text 2, look for the phrase "yet many will question"—what exactly do they question, and why do they think that part of Alvarez’s work might be flawed?
Check that both halves of an answer fit
For each answer choice, carefully compare the first half to Text 1 and the second half to Text 2. If even one half introduces something that is not mentioned in the text, eliminate that choice.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify the author’s view in Text 1
Read Text 1 and separate praise from criticism.
- Positive: The book is described as a "heartfelt call to protect coral reefs."
- Main criticism: It "suffers from a crippling geographic myopia" because it focuses "almost exclusively on the Great Barrier Reef" and "ignores data from the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean" that show different patterns.
- Effect of this flaw: A wider, more global survey "would have forced her to temper her conclusion" that reefs are "uniformly hurtling toward collapse."
So, Text 1’s main issue is that Alvarez’s narrow regional focus leads to an overgeneralized, too-bleak global conclusion.
Clarify the author’s view in Text 2
Now look at Text 2 and again separate praise from criticism.
- Positive: Readers "will undoubtedly admire Alvarez’s meticulous compilation of field measurements."
- Main criticism: They will "question her insistence that ‘most reefs will be functionally extinct by 2050.’"
- Reason for doubting this prediction: It relies on "worst-case emission scenarios" and gives "scant attention" to strategies that "could slow or even reverse current trends."
So, Text 2’s main issue is that Alvarez’s projection about how bad things will get is too extreme and does not fully account for possible improvements.
Match each answer choice against Text 1 and Text 2
Use your summaries to test the choices. For each option, ask: Does the first half match Text 1? Does the second half match Text 2?
- Eliminate any option claiming Text 2 criticizes Alvarez for not having enough field measurements, because Text 2 explicitly praises her "meticulous compilation of field measurements."
- Eliminate any option that swaps the critiques (making Text 1 about the 2050 projection and Text 2 about geographic focus).
- Eliminate any option that says Text 2 thinks Alvarez is too optimistic; Text 2 portrays her as too pessimistic because she relies on worst-case scenarios and downplays mitigation.
After removing those, the remaining choice should describe (1) Text 1’s complaint about narrow geographic focus and (2) Text 2’s complaint that Alvarez’s future-outlook claim is overstated.
Select the only fully accurate description
Eliminate any choice where either half does not match the corresponding text:
- A is wrong because Text 2 praises Alvarez’s "meticulous compilation of field measurements" rather than faulting her for not having enough data.
- B is wrong because the geographic-focus criticism belongs to Text 1, and the 2050-extinction projection criticism belongs to Text 2 (the choice swaps them).
- C is wrong because Text 2 says Alvarez relies on worst-case scenarios and gives scant attention to mitigation; it portrays her as too pessimistic, not too optimistic.
- D correctly states that Text 1 thinks Alvarez’s argument is distorted by narrow geographic scope, and Text 2 thinks she overstates how severe future reef decline will be.
So the correct answer is D) The author of Text 1 claims Alvarez’s argument is skewed by her restricted regional focus, whereas the author of Text 2 claims Alvarez overstates the severity of future reef decline.