Question 140·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Researchers excavating the ancient settlement of Tell Abidi unearthed several dozen charred wheat grains that have been radiocarbon-dated to about 9,000 years ago. According to the team’s lead archaeobotanist, the grains are “direct evidence that the site’s inhabitants cultivated wheat,” demonstrating that agriculture arose in this region far earlier than previously documented.
Text 2
The discovery of charred wheat grains at Tell Abidi is intriguing, but it is too soon to conclude that the community practiced agriculture. Because wheat can be transported great distances by both trade and natural forces such as flooding, the grains could have originated elsewhere. Moreover, no farming implements, storage pits, or irrigation features have been found at the site. Until such corroborating evidence emerges, the charred grains alone cannot establish that wheat was cultivated locally.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
For “cross-text connection” questions, first restate in your own words what each text is claiming, especially any underlined or quoted parts. Then decide the second author’s attitude toward the first—agree, disagree, partially agree, or say “not enough evidence”—using key signal phrases like “however,” “too soon to conclude,” or “therefore.” Finally, eliminate any answer choice that adds new information not in the texts or that flips the stance (agreement vs. disagreement), and choose the one that most closely matches how the second text comments on or evaluates the first text’s claim.
Hints
Clarify Text 1’s claim
Reread the underlined sentence in Text 1. Is the archaeobotanist expressing uncertainty, or treating the wheat grains as strong proof of something?
Focus on key signal phrases in Text 2
Look closely at phrases in Text 2 such as “too soon to conclude,” “could have originated elsewhere,” and “until such corroborating evidence emerges.” What do these tell you about the author’s attitude toward Text 1’s conclusion?
Decide the relationship between the texts
Ask yourself: Does the author of Text 2 mainly agree with the claim, disagree with it, or say it might be true but needs more/different support? Then look for the answer choice that best describes that kind of response, using only information given in the texts.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the underlined claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined part of Text 1: the archaeobotanist says the grains are “direct evidence that the site’s inhabitants cultivated wheat,” and that this demonstrates that agriculture arose there much earlier than previously thought.
So Text 1 is making a strong, confident conclusion: the grains prove that people at Tell Abidi were already farming wheat locally and early.
Summarize the main point of Text 2
Now read Text 2 and ask: Does this author accept that strong conclusion or push back against it?
Key phrases in Text 2:
- “it is too soon to conclude that the community practiced agriculture”
- Wheat “can be transported great distances” by trade or natural forces, so the grains “could have originated elsewhere.”
- “no farming implements, storage pits, or irrigation features have been found”
- “Until such corroborating evidence emerges, the charred grains alone cannot establish that wheat was cultivated locally.”
This shows Text 2 disagrees with treating the grains as proof of local agriculture and stresses that the evidence is not enough by itself.
Identify how Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s claim
Put the two viewpoints together:
- Text 1: The grains are direct evidence that people at the site cultivated wheat early.
- Text 2: The grains might have come from elsewhere, and without tools, storage, or irrigation remains, they do not yet prove local cultivation.
So, Text 2 would respond by saying the claim in Text 1 is too strong, because it overlooks other possible explanations for why the grains are there and lacks additional supporting evidence.
Match that relationship to the answer choices
Now test the choices against what you found:
- The correct choice must show that Text 2 thinks Text 1’s conclusion is not fully supported and that other explanations need to be considered.
Choice A says Text 2 would respond “by arguing that the claim ignores alternative explanations for the grains’ presence and therefore is not yet sufficiently supported.”
This exactly matches Text 2’s points about trade, natural forces, missing tools/storage/irrigation, and the statement that the grains alone cannot establish local cultivation.
Therefore, A is the correct answer.