Question 165·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
A recent environmental policy brief argues that rapid, large-scale adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) is the decisive step for cutting urban air pollution, asserting that no other strategy can achieve comparable reductions within the next decade.
Text 2
In a 2023 modeling study, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that modernizing and electrifying public transit—by expanding bus rapid-transit corridors, increasing service frequency, and converting rail systems to renewable energy—could lower particulate emissions in major U.S. cities by about 60% over ten years. The researchers note that these reductions would equal or surpass those expected from projected EV uptake alone.
Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the claim emphasized in Text 1?
For cross-text questions, first paraphrase the key claim from each text in your own words, especially any bolded or emphasized parts. Then decide the relationship between the texts: does the second text agree, disagree, or qualify what the first text says, and about which specific point? Finally, go to the choices and eliminate any that (1) talk about issues not mentioned in the texts, (2) exaggerate beyond what the second text actually says, or (3) claim agreement where there is clear contradiction, keeping the one that most precisely matches the cross-text relationship you identified.
Hints
Focus on the highlighted claim in Text 1
Reread the emphasized phrase in Text 1: what exactly is it saying about other possible strategies besides EV adoption?
Look for a direct comparison in Text 2
In Text 2, pay attention to what the researchers say about the emission reductions from improving public transit compared with those from EV adoption alone.
Decide if Text 2 agrees or disagrees with Text 1’s exclusivity
Ask yourself: does Text 2 support the idea that EVs are uniquely effective, or does it provide evidence that another strategy can match or exceed EVs in reducing pollution?
Check which choice captures that specific disagreement
Among the options, look for the one that directly addresses how Text 2’s findings relate to Text 1’s claim that "no other strategy" can achieve comparable reductions.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the key claim in Text 1
Look closely at the emphasized portion of Text 1: it says that rapid, large-scale EV adoption is the decisive step and that no other strategy can achieve comparable reductions within the next decade. That means Text 1 is making an exclusive claim: EVs are not just helpful, but uniquely effective—no other approach can match them in reducing urban air pollution during this time frame.
Understand the main finding in Text 2
Now focus on Text 2, especially the last sentence: the modeling study finds that modernizing and electrifying public transit can lower particulate emissions by about 60% over ten years, and the researchers note that these reductions would equal or surpass those expected from projected EV uptake alone. So Text 2 says public transit reforms can do at least as well as, or even better than, EV adoption by itself.
Compare how the texts relate to each other
Text 1 says no other strategy can achieve reductions comparable to EVs in the next decade. Text 2 presents another strategy (upgraded, electrified public transit) and explicitly states that its emission reductions would equal or surpass those from EVs. This directly challenges Text 1’s “no other strategy” claim by providing evidence that another strategy can achieve comparable or better reductions.
Match this relationship to the answer choices
We need the choice that best describes how the researchers in Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s emphasized claim. They would not fully agree with Text 1 (because they show another strategy works as well or better), and they are not saying EVs are useless; instead, they are objecting to the idea that no other strategy can compare. The correct answer is: They would contend that the claim dismisses the comparable ability of upgraded public transportation to reduce urban air pollution.