A question about two texts tests how one author would respond to another’s claim. Read the question to see who answers whom, then find the claim being judged. When the claim predicts overall effects, check what the other text accepts and where it adds limits. Use those points to decide whether the author would reject the claim, add limits to it, or apply it to a new case. The response must use that author’s own reason.
Hints
- Hint 1
Identify who is answering whom. The question asks Text 2’s author to judge the prediction near the end of Text 1.
- Hint 2
Look for what Liu accepts and what she cautions about. Read from her first caution through the final sentence.
- Hint 3
Predict Liu’s response in your own words. What view follows from her evidence, and what reason supports it?
Step-by-step
Claims, view, and reason
Step 1Find the prediction and its basis
Start with Text 1’s prediction about OceanGreen’s environmental impact, which Text 2’s author is asked to judge. What does the columnist expect, and why? OceanGreen could make plastic waste a relic of the past within a decade, while manufacturing requires little more than seawater, sunlight, and time. The prediction combines a large, fast drop in waste with production that uses few resources.
- Step 2
Read the benefit and the cautions
What benefit does Liu accept, and what concerns her? Liu accepts faster breakdown under industrial composting conditions, but says drying and processing the algae use much more electricity than people expect. She also says current prototypes degrade only in carefully managed facilities, so ordinary soil or seawater won’t provide the same result. Her cautions concern both making the film and what happens after use.
- Step 3
Name the view and test the reasons
How would Liu judge that broad promise? She would add limits to the optimism, while accepting the benefit in composting. The choice about how quickly OceanGreen will break down focuses on a breakdown time that Text 1 never gives. The optimism is justified choice treats expanded composting as enough, even though scaling production could be energy-intensive.
- Step 4
Match the full caution without going further
How far can we take Liu’s warning about electricity? The reduce or even outweigh choice leaves out disposal and goes further than Liu’s words, since neither text weighs total environmental costs against total gains. The choice saying Text 1 overlooks production and disposal limitations covers both cautions without going further: could temper means could lessen, without claiming costs could be greater than the gains. Choice B.