For cross-text "most likely respond" questions, first restate in your own words the key claim or assumption in the first text, then summarize the viewpoint of the author in the second text—especially how they expand, qualify, or challenge that claim. Decide whether the second author would agree, partially agree, or disagree, and why. Finally, scan the answer choices for the one that matches both the second author’s stance (support, qualify, or oppose) and their specific reasons or criteria, and eliminate choices that introduce new ideas or extremes not supported by the passage.
Hints
- Hint 1
Clarify what Text 1 is claiming
Underline the phrase in Text 1 that says what lithium-ion batteries can do for a future grid. Ask yourself: on what main evidence do the advocates base that claim?
- Hint 2
Notice the contrast set up in Text 2
Text 2 begins with the word "However" and mentions that cost is only one metric. What additional issues does Verma bring up that are not discussed in Text 1?
- Hint 3
Decide whether Verma would fully agree with Text 1
Given Verma’s concerns about materials, environment, and long-duration storage, would she accept the idea that lithium-ion batteries alone can meet future storage needs, or would she see important limits?
- Hint 4
Eliminate answer choices that misuse Verma’s position
Look for options that make Verma sound either fully supportive of lithium-ion or completely opposed to all battery technologies. Do those match what she actually says about vanadium flow batteries?
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Pinpoint the key claim from Text 1
Look at what the advocates in Text 1 are asserting: they argue that lithium-ion batteries are now economically viable for grid-scale storage and, based on falling costs, claim that lithium-ion batteries alone can handle the storage needs of a future renewable grid. Their reasoning is mainly about price (below $150 per kilowatt-hour, rivaling natural-gas peaker plants) and the trend of costs going down.
- Step 2
Summarize Verma’s main concerns in Text 2
Now focus on what Verma in Text 2 emphasizes:
- She immediately says cost is only one metric for judging grid-storage technologies.
- She notes that lithium-ion batteries depend on finite supplies of cobalt and nickel, which come with environmental and geopolitical risks.
- She argues that we must consider the full life-cycle impact of materials.
- When those broader factors are included, she says vanadium flow batteries look more sustainable for long-duration storage than lithium-ion. This shows she is skeptical of relying on lithium-ion alone, especially for large-scale, long-duration use.
- Step 3
Infer how Verma would respond to the assertion
Text 1’s assertion is optimistic about lithium-ion based mainly on cost. Verma, however, stresses that non-cost factors—such as material scarcity, environmental harm, and sustainability over the full life cycle—are crucial. She also points to an alternative technology (vanadium flow batteries) as better for long-duration storage. So her likely response would be to push back against the claim that lithium-ion alone can shoulder future grid needs, saying that the argument is incomplete because it ignores these other critical constraints.
- Step 4
Match that predicted response to the answer choices
We need the option that shows Verma would challenge the lithium-ion-only claim because it relies too heavily on cost and does not account for material and environmental limits, while suggesting that lithium-ion is not ideal for large-scale, long-duration storage. The choice that does this is:
Correct answer: By arguing that focusing only on cost ignores material scarcity and environmental concerns that limit lithium-ion batteries' suitability for large-scale, long-duration storage.