Question 137·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Over the past decade, ecologists have attempted to quantify changes in global insect biomass, compiling thousands of local surveys. However, any estimate of worldwide insect decline remains speculative at best because sampling techniques vary wildly among studies—from light traps to sweep nets—and because many regions lack long-term data entirely.
Text 2
A new consortium of researchers combined satellite-based laser radar (LiDAR) readings of aerial insect density with machine-learning models that harmonize ground-level surveys from 74 countries. The authors argue that their approach standardizes disparate collection methods and fills geographic gaps, allowing them to calculate a reliable 20-year trend in global insect biomass.
Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, first isolate the key claim or concern in the referenced part of Text 1, then summarize the main argument in Text 2, especially how it addresses that same issue. Ask whether Text 2 would agree, disagree, or modify Text 1’s claim, and then scan the choices for the one that matches this relationship while staying strictly within what’s stated or clearly implied—eliminating any option that introduces new ideas, contradicts the second text, or ignores its main point.
Hints
Identify the problem in Text 1
Reread the underlined part of Text 1. What specific reasons does it give for why global insect-decline estimates are considered speculative?
See what Text 2 claims to fix
In Text 2, look for phrases that describe what the new method does about sampling techniques and geographic coverage. How do those phrases relate to the problems in Text 1?
Think about agreement vs. disagreement
Would the researchers in Text 2 agree that global estimates still have to be speculative, or would they argue that their new approach changes that situation? Look for the answer choice that reflects this stance.
Eliminate options that contradict Text 2
Cross out any choice that says the researchers still can’t get a reliable global trend or that they prefer not to study global trends at all, since Text 2 claims a reliable 20-year global trend.
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint the key claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined sentence in Text 1:
- It says that any estimate of worldwide insect decline is "speculative at best."
- It gives two reasons: sampling techniques vary wildly and many regions lack long-term data.
So Text 1’s main idea here is: because of inconsistent methods and data gaps, we can’t trust global insect-decline numbers.
Summarize what Text 2 claims about its new method
Now look at Text 2 and identify what the new researchers say their approach does:
- They use LiDAR readings of aerial insect density.
- They use machine-learning models that harmonize ground-level surveys from many countries.
- They say their method standardizes disparate collection methods and fills geographic gaps.
- Because of that, they can calculate a reliable 20-year trend in global insect biomass.
So Text 2 is claiming: we have a standardized, gap-filling method that produces a reliable global trend.
Decide how Text 2 would respond to Text 1
Compare the two texts:
- Text 1: global estimates are speculative because of inconsistent methods and missing regions.
- Text 2: our method standardizes methods and fills geographic gaps, giving a reliable global trend.
This means the researchers in Text 2 accept the problems described in Text 1 but believe their new approach solves those problems. So they would disagree that global estimates still must be speculative.
Match that relationship to the answer choices
Now check each option for one that says: our new, integrated approach fixes the inconsistency and data-gap problems, so a reliable global trend is now possible.
- One choice explicitly says that their combined LiDAR-and-modeling method overcomes the inconsistencies that made earlier global estimates speculative.
That choice is the correct answer: “They would contend that their integrated LiDAR-and-modeling approach overcomes the inconsistencies that make previous global estimates speculative.”