Question 143·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Urban beekeeping has become a fixture of city branding: hotels display hives on rooftops, cafés boast honey from “steps away,” and reporters swarm for photo ops. But as policy, the practice is thin gruel. Honeybee colonies are domesticated livestock; adding more hives in dense neighborhoods can intensify competition for nectar and pollen, potentially harming native pollinators that receive no such human caretaking. Meanwhile, time and money lavished on boxes and bee suits could be invested in planting native flowers at scale and reducing pesticide use—measures with documented benefits for diverse species. Rooftop hives make for excellent publicity; they are spectacle more than strategy.
Text 2 To treat urban beekeeping as mere show is to overlook what it can unlock. A rooftop hive rarely “fixes” a city ecosystem by itself, and unmanaged proliferation can indeed strain resources. Yet the practice draws residents onto rooftops and into conversations about flowering calendars, green roofs, and pesticide ordinances. Many beekeepers become advocates for habitat corridors and pollinator-friendly plantings in parks and medians. When hives are paired with native vegetation and used as teaching tools, they function less as mascots than as gateways to sustained civic action.
Question Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 that rooftop hives are “spectacle more than strategy”?
For cross-text connection questions, first identify the key claim or attitude in Text 1 (for example, that rooftop hives are "spectacle more than strategy"). Then read Text 2 specifically to see how it responds: does it agree, disagree, or partly do both? Look for signal phrases like "to treat X as Y is to overlook" or "indeed" that show concessions and counterpoints. Finally, choose the option that captures both parts of Text 2’s stance—the agreement (what it concedes) and the disagreement (what additional value or nuance it adds)—and avoid answers that are more extreme than anything stated in the passages.
Hints
Clarify Text 1’s view of rooftop hives
Reread the end of Text 1, especially the sentence with the phrase "spectacle more than strategy." What overall judgment is the author making about rooftop beekeeping?
Notice how Text 2 directly answers that judgment
Look closely at the first sentence of Text 2. How does the author respond to the idea that urban beekeeping is "mere show"? Is the response total agreement, total disagreement, or something in between?
Track both agreement and disagreement
Text 2 acknowledges some problems with rooftop hives but also describes certain benefits. As you read, separate what the author admits is true from what the author adds as a counterpoint.
Match that nuanced view to a choice
Among the answer options, look for one that both recognizes the limitations or risks of rooftop hives and also highlights a potential positive role they can play.
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint Text 1’s main claim about rooftop hives
Focus on the last two sentences of Text 1: the author calls rooftop hives "thin gruel" as policy and says, "Rooftop hives make for excellent publicity; they are spectacle more than strategy." This means the author thinks rooftop beekeeping is mostly for show and not an effective ecological solution. The author also criticizes the practice because it can intensify competition and divert money from better measures like planting native flowers and reducing pesticides.
See how Text 2 responds to that criticism
Look at the opening of Text 2: "To treat urban beekeeping as mere show is to overlook what it can unlock." This sentence directly responds to the idea that rooftop hives are "spectacle more than strategy." Text 2 admits problems: "A rooftop hive rarely 'fixes' a city ecosystem by itself, and unmanaged proliferation can indeed strain resources." But then it adds that beekeeping draws residents into conversations about green roofs and pesticide ordinances, and that many beekeepers become advocates for habitat corridors and pollinator-friendly plantings. So the author of Text 2 acknowledges limits and risks, but emphasizes positive indirect effects.
Summarize Text 2’s overall stance in your own words
Putting it together, Text 2 is not simply for or against rooftop hives. The author agrees that rooftop hives alone do not solve urban ecological problems and can cause strain if overdone. However, the author argues they can be valuable when they are combined with native plantings and used as teaching tools, because they can lead to broader, long-term civic action and better policies. So the relationship to Text 1 is: partial agreement on the limits, plus a disagreement about their overall value when used thoughtfully.
Match that stance to the best answer choice
Now compare your summary to the choices:
- One choice says the author would endorse prohibiting new rooftop hives, which is too extreme given that Text 2 sees a positive role for hives when managed well.
- Another says the author would deny any competition with wild pollinators, which contradicts the acknowledgment that proliferation can "strain resources."
- A third says the author would fully agree that hives are just publicity and redirect all funds away from them, which again is too extreme and opposite to the idea of hives as "gateways to sustained civic action."
The remaining choice states that the author would concede rooftop hives alone have limited ecological payoff but argue that they can spur public engagement and policy support when paired with habitat improvements. This exactly matches Text 2’s nuanced view, so the correct answer is: “By conceding that rooftop hives by themselves have limited ecological payoff but contending that the practice can spur public engagement and policy support when paired with habitat improvements.”