Question 3·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
A team at Northwell Institute reports that its newly engineered porous magnesium-oxide sorbent can pull carbon dioxide directly from ambient air for an estimated $94 per metric ton, less than half the prevailing market cost of direct-air-capture (DAC). The researchers argue that, because the sorbent remains stable after hundreds of heating–cooling cycles, capital costs will fall further as production scales, making DAC “cost-competitive with conventional emissions-reduction measures within a decade.”
Text 2
Energy economist Lara Gupta notes that sorbent price is only one component of DAC cost. In most facilities, she writes, over 60 percent of total expense comes from the electricity and heat required to regenerate the sorbent. Unless those energy inputs themselves become dramatically cheaper, Gupta calculates, overall DAC costs will “hover above $200 per ton,” even if the magnesium-oxide material were free. She cites a recent pilot plant that employed a similar sorbent yet incurred a net capture cost of $230 per ton, largely because of energy expenditures.
Which choice best describes how Text 1 and Text 2 relate to each other?
For cross-text relationship questions, first quickly summarize each text in a short phrase (e.g., “optimistic about new tech” vs. “warns about hidden costs”) and note the tone (supportive, skeptical, neutral). Then, before looking at choices, say in your own words how the second text relates to the first (supports, contradicts, qualifies, or adds a new angle). Finally, eliminate choices that introduce elements not in the passages (like extra strategies or shared conclusions that neither text actually states) and select the option that matches both texts’ main points and the overall relationship you identified.
Hints
Clarify what Text 1 is mainly doing
Ask yourself: Is Text 1 criticizing direct-air capture, or is it describing something new and promising about how DAC might become cheaper? Sum up Text 1 in one short phrase.
Clarify what Text 2 is mainly doing
Look closely at what cost components Text 2 emphasizes. Does the economist mostly agree with the optimistic cost outlook, or does she highlight reasons that overall DAC costs might stay high?
Describe the relationship before looking at answer choices
In your own words, decide: Does Text 2 (a) support Text 1, (b) offer a solution to Text 1’s problems, (c) repeat the same main point, or (d) point out a limitation or complication in Text 1’s claims? Then pick the choice that best matches that relationship without adding extra elements, like multiple strategies that aren’t in the texts.
Step-by-step Explanation
Summarize the main point and tone of Text 1
Text 1 reports that a new porous magnesium-oxide sorbent can capture carbon dioxide from air for an estimated $94 per metric ton, which is "less than half" current DAC costs. The researchers then argue that as the sorbent is stable over many cycles and production scales up, costs will drop further, making DAC "cost-competitive" within a decade.
So:
- Focus is on a technological advance (the new sorbent).
- The tone is positive/optimistic about its impact on cost and feasibility of DAC.
Summarize the main point and tone of Text 2
Text 2, by energy economist Lara Gupta, says that sorbent price is only one component of DAC cost. She emphasizes that "over 60 percent" of total expenses come from the electricity and heat needed to regenerate the sorbent. She then states that unless energy becomes much cheaper, overall costs will "hover above $200 per ton," even if the sorbent were free. She backs this up with a pilot plant example with a net capture cost of $230 per ton.
So:
- Focus is on other cost factors, especially energy, not just the sorbent.
- The tone is cautious/skeptical about large cost reductions; it limits the optimism of Text 1.
Identify the relationship between the two texts
Now compare:
- Text 1: "This new sorbent will make DAC cheap and competitive."
- Text 2: "Sorbent cost is only part of the story; energy is still very expensive, so total DAC cost will stay high."
Text 2 is not attacking the sorbent itself; instead, it is saying that even with a cheap or free sorbent, the overall economic impact on DAC cost is limited because of energy costs. This means Text 2 is qualifying or counterbalancing the optimism in Text 1 by pointing out limitations.
Match that relationship to the answer choices
Now test each answer choice against this understanding:
- The texts do not present or compare two different strategies, and Text 2 does not endorse one strategy over another → eliminates choice A.
- Text 1 is not outlining "problems"; it is celebrating a promising advance, and Text 2 is not offering a "solution" but a warning about costs → eliminates choice B.
- The texts do not both say the main barrier is sorbent cost; Text 2 actually says energy is the major cost, not the sorbent → eliminates choice C.
The only choice that accurately reflects that Text 1 is optimistic about a new carbon-capture technology, and Text 2 points out cost factors (energy) that may limit its economic impact, is:
Text 1 presents an optimistic assessment of a technological advance in carbon capture, whereas Text 2 points out factors that may limit the economic impact of that advance.