A question about two texts tests how one author's view answers the other's recommendation. Start with the question to find who answers whom and which recommendation they must judge. Then put each text's claim and reason in a few words, including any limits. Ask whether the responding author would reject the claim as wrong or unsupported, accept it only with a limit, or extend it to a new case. The reason decides: a response must use that author's own evidence.
Hints
- Hint 1
Find Nichols’s conclusion and the two benefits she gives as her reason.
- Hint 2
In Text 2, look for the limit on academic gains. What would Díaz want Nichols’s recommendation to take into account?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim and the limit
Step 1Find the recommendation and its reason
The question asks Díaz to critique Nichols’s policy recommendation, so we’re judging her plan from his view. Why does Nichols want every public school to offer free breakfast? She found higher student attendance and modest gains in test scores, so her plan rests on both attendance and learning benefits.
- Step 2
Find Díaz’s view
Does Díaz support both benefits without limits? He confirms that attendance generally rises when breakfast is available, but academic gains appeared only in schools that served high-quality, nutrient-dense foods. So he would accept Nichols’s recommendation only with a limit: low-nutrition meals may bring students to school without improving learning.
- Step 3
Match the critique to his reason
Which critique gives Díaz’s own reason? The choice saying academic gains depend on meal quality links better test scores to meal quality. Its phrase not just breakfast availability challenges the idea that offering meals alone will produce the gains Nichols expects. Choice B.