Question 30·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
A recent technology column celebrates the debut of OceanGreen, a flexible packaging film derived from fast-growing algae. The columnist writes that the product “promises to virtually eliminate the mountains of single-use plastic that currently clog ecosystems,” adding that its manufacturing “requires little more than seawater, sunlight, and time.” The piece concludes that OceanGreen “could make the plastic-waste crisis a relic of the past within a decade.”
Text 2
Polymer chemist Dr. Mei Liu, whose lab has tested OceanGreen prototypes, agrees that algae-based plastics degrade faster than conventional plastics under industrial composting conditions. Yet Liu cautions that scaling production could be energy-intensive, noting that drying and processing the algae “consume far more electricity than most people realize.” She also points out that current prototypes degrade only in carefully managed facilities, not in ordinary soil or seawater: “If consumers assume OceanGreen will vanish harmlessly in a roadside ditch, they will be disappointed.”
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1’s prediction about OceanGreen’s environmental impact?
For cross-text connections, summarize each text’s main claim and tone, then decide whether Text 2 agrees, disagrees, or agrees with reservations about Text 1’s key prediction. Choose the option that captures Text 2’s specific qualifications using ideas explicitly stated in Text 2, and be wary of choices that are too narrow (only one reservation) or that turn reservations into overall endorsement.
Hints
Pin down Text 1’s prediction
What does Text 1 claim OceanGreen will accomplish, and how confident (sweeping) is that claim?
List Dr. Liu’s two cautions
In Text 2, find one limitation about scaling production and one limitation about where/how OceanGreen degrades.
Match the relationship between the texts
Does Text 2 fully endorse Text 1, fully reject it, or agree but add reservations that make the prediction less certain?
Beware of answers that are too narrow or too conditional
Eliminate choices that focus on only one of Dr. Liu’s concerns (only degradation or only energy use) or that suggest she basically agrees with Text 1’s forecast if a condition is met.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s claim and tone
Text 1 predicts that OceanGreen will “virtually eliminate” single-use plastic waste and could make the crisis “a relic of the past within a decade,” while also implying production is straightforward (just “seawater, sunlight, and time”). The tone is strongly optimistic and downplays obstacles.
Identify what Text 2 agrees with and what it qualifies
Text 2 agrees with a limited claim: algae-based plastics can degrade faster than conventional plastics under industrial composting conditions. But Dr. Liu adds important cautions:
- Scaling up could be energy-intensive because drying/processing algae uses substantial electricity.
- Current prototypes degrade only in managed facilities, not in ordinary soil or seawater, so they will not simply disappear if littered.
Determine Text 2’s likely response to Text 1’s prediction
Because Dr. Liu highlights both production challenges and disposal/degradation limitations, she would likely temper Text 1’s sweeping prediction. She would argue that real-world constraints could prevent OceanGreen from delivering the near-total, rapid solution Text 1 forecasts.
Select the choice that matches Text 2’s reservations
Evaluate the options by how well they capture both categories of concerns raised in Text 2 (production/scale and disposal/degradation conditions). The best match is the one stating that Text 1 overlooks production and disposal limitations that could temper OceanGreen’s overall benefits: “Text 1 overlooks production and disposal limitations that could temper OceanGreen’s overall benefits.”