Question 158·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Over the past two decades, ecologist Mei Larson has argued that the reintroduction of gray wolves to the Northern Plateau National Park set off a "trophic cascade" that ultimately enriched the region's soils. According to Larson, wolves reduced overbrowsing by elk, allowing willows and cottonwoods to rebound along streams. The reestablished vegetation, Larson claims, trapped sediment and organic matter, deepening the riparian soils and significantly increasing their carbon content.
Text 2
Hydrologist Rafael Ibáñez agrees that soils along the park's streams have deepened, but he contends that the primary agent of change was not the wolves. Instead, he credits a surge in beaver activity that began shortly after the park banned recreational beaver trapping in 2003. The beavers' dams slowed streamflow, raised the local water table, and caused fine sediments to settle out—processes that Ibáñez asserts explain most of the observed soil accretion. While he concedes that reduced elk browsing may have helped vegetation recover, he argues that Larson overstates the wolves' role by overlooking the hydrologic effects of beaver dams.
Question
Based on the texts, how would Ibáñez most likely respond to Larson’s explanation of how the park’s soils became richer?
For SAT cross-text questions, first give each text a quick one-line summary of its main claim. Then identify how the second author reacts to the first: do they agree on the outcome but disagree on the cause, add a condition, or reject it outright? Once you know that relationship, scan the answer choices for the one that accurately captures both the point of agreement (here, that soils deepened) and the specific disagreement (here, what mainly caused that change), and eliminate options that introduce ideas or criticisms not supported by either text.
Hints
Clarify what Larson is explaining
In Text 1, focus on what process Larson says led to deeper, richer soils. What chain of events does she describe starting with wolves?
See what Ibáñez accepts and what he challenges
In Text 2, separate what Ibáñez agrees with (what he says did happen) from what he disagrees with (what he says caused it). What does he say was the primary agent of change?
Connect Ibáñez’s disagreement to the choices
Look for the choice where Ibáñez keeps the same overall result (richer soils) but questions Larson’s cause and replaces it with a different main cause described in Text 2.
Eliminate options that add new issues
Be careful with choices that introduce topics not mentioned in Text 2 (for example, new worries or processes). If Ibáñez never talks about something, he can’t criticize Larson on that basis.
Step-by-step Explanation
Summarize Larson’s explanation (Text 1)
From Text 1, Larson argues that reintroducing wolves started a chain reaction (a "trophic cascade"). Wolves reduced elk overbrowsing, which allowed willows and cottonwoods along streams to rebound. This vegetation then trapped sediment and organic matter, which deepened the riparian soils and increased their carbon content. So for Larson, wolves → fewer elk eating plants → more streamside plants → more sediment/organic matter trapped → richer soils.
Summarize Ibáñez’s response (Text 2)
In Text 2, Ibáñez agrees that streamside soils have deepened, but he disagrees about the cause:
- He says the primary agent of change was not the wolves.
- Instead, he credits a surge in beaver activity after the park banned recreational beaver trapping.
- He explains that beaver dams slowed streamflow, raised the local water table, and caused fine sediments to settle out.
- He says these processes explain most of the soil accretion and that Larson overstates the wolves' role by overlooking the hydrologic effects of beaver dams.
Interpret what the question is really asking
The question asks: How would Ibáñez most likely respond to Larson’s explanation of how the park’s soils became richer?
So you need an answer that shows him:
- Accepting that soils became richer/deeper,
- But challenging Larson’s explanation of how it happened,
- Emphasizing a different primary cause than the one Larson gives.
Match each choice to what Ibáñez actually says
Now compare each option to Text 2:
- Choice A talks about carbon sequestration and long-term soil fertility. Ibáñez never mentions carbon or long-term fertility; his issue is what caused the soil changes, not whether Larson discussed carbon enough.
- Choice B says Ibáñez would praise Larson for noting a link between trapping restrictions and beaver growth but say she misconnects it to soil improvements. But Larson never mentions trapping restrictions or beavers at all, and Ibáñez himself is the one who connects beaver activity to soil improvements.
- Choice C says he would claim Larson underestimates elk resilience and that elk continued to browse heavily. This contradicts Text 2, where Ibáñez concedes that reduced elk browsing may have helped vegetation recover.
- Choice D says he would argue that Larson’s explanation overlooks evidence that beaver dams, rather than wolf predation, were primarily responsible for raising the water table and trapping sediment. This exactly matches Text 2: he credits beaver dams with slowing water, raising the water table, and causing sediment to settle, and he says Larson overstates the wolves' role by overlooking those hydrologic effects.
Therefore, the correct answer is D) By arguing that it overlooks evidence that beaver dams, rather than wolf predation, were primarily responsible for raising the water table and trapping sediment.