Question 161·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
A recent field study placed rows of sugar maple trees along a 2-mile section of a busy interstate highway. After one year, roadside sound levels had dropped by an average of 15 decibels, showing that sugar maple trees provide an unmatched solution to highway noise pollution.
Text 2
While the study’s results are intriguing, its conclusion is overstated. The researchers did not measure wind patterns or traffic‐volume changes that could explain the reduction in noise, nor did they compare sugar maples with other equally dense tree species such as spruces or hornbeams. Until such variables are controlled for, it is impossible to claim that sugar maples are uniquely effective as noise barriers.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
For cross-text questions that ask how one author would respond to another, first underline the exact claim or sentence in Text 1 that is being referenced. Then, in Text 2, locate any direct judgments about that claim (words like “overstated,” “incorrect,” “incomplete”) and note the reasons given. Paraphrase how the second author would answer the first in your own words, without looking at the choices. Finally, choose the option that best matches that paraphrase and reject any answer that introduces new topics or concerns that don’t appear in the second text.
Hints
Pinpoint the strength of Text 1’s claim
Focus on the underlined phrase in Text 1: what exactly is it claiming about sugar maples’ effectiveness compared with other solutions?
Look for how Text 2 reacts to that strength
In Text 2, find the sentence that directly judges the conclusion in Text 1. What word does Text 2 use to describe the conclusion, and what reasons are given?
Match the reasons, not your own ideas
Ask yourself: Does Text 2 talk about money, long-term health, or winter leaf loss, or does it focus on something else? Eliminate any answer that brings in new concerns that do not appear in Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the key claim in Text 1
Look at the underlined part in Text 1: “showing that sugar maple trees provide an unmatched solution to highway noise pollution.” This is a very strong claim. It says:
- Sugar maples caused the noise reduction.
- Sugar maples are an “unmatched” (uniquely best) solution.
So Text 1 is not just saying sugar maples help; it is saying they are uniquely effective based on this one study.
Understand Text 2’s overall reaction
Text 2 starts, “While the study’s results are intriguing, its conclusion is overstated.” That means the author of Text 2 thinks the conclusion in Text 1 goes too far.
Then Text 2 gives reasons:
- The researchers did not measure wind patterns or traffic-volume changes that could also explain the noise reduction.
- They did not compare sugar maples with other dense tree species like spruces or hornbeams.
- Therefore, “it is impossible to claim that sugar maples are uniquely effective as noise barriers.”
So Text 2 is criticizing the strength and certainty of Text 1’s claim.
Paraphrase how Text 2 would respond to Text 1
If the author of Text 2 could speak directly to the underlined claim in Text 1, they would say something like:
- You can’t just conclude sugar maples are an “unmatched” solution from this study.
- You haven’t ruled out other causes of the noise reduction (like wind or changes in traffic).
- You also haven’t compared sugar maples with other dense trees, so you can’t say they are uniquely effective.
Notice that this response focuses on missing controls and comparisons, not on money, long-term health, or seasonal changes.
Match that response to the best answer choice
Now compare that paraphrased response to the options:
- One option says the problem is that the study credits sugar maples for the noise drop without ruling out other explanations or comparing them to other trees.
- The other options talk about cost, long-term health, or temporary winter effects, which Text 2 never mentions and in some cases directly contradicts.
The option that correctly reflects Text 2’s actual criticism is:
A) By arguing that it attributes the noise reduction to sugar maples without ruling out alternative explanations or making comparisons to other trees.