A question about two texts tests how one person would respond to another’s conclusion. Read the question to find who answers whom, then put each text’s claim and reason in a few words. Use that person’s evidence to decide whether they’d agree, reject the conclusion, add a limit, or apply it to a new case. Then check the reason for the response, because a choice can take the right view but give a reason that person never offered.
Hints
- Hint 1
Start with Marsh’s last sentence in Text 1. Put her conclusion in a few words, then use Chen’s findings to judge it.
- Hint 2
In Text 2, check the results for each drink. How do those findings relate to the cause Marsh names?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim and the findings
Step 1Identify Marsh’s conclusion
Marsh concludes that the more caffeinated coffee an employee consumes (up to a safe limit), the more productive they’ll become. The question has Chen respond, so which part of Marsh’s view matters? We’re testing her link between more caffeine and greater productivity, using Chen’s findings.
- Step 2
Test it against Chen’s results
Chen found that workers drinking decaffeinated coffee performed almost as well as those who drank regular coffee. What does the hot-water result add? Holding hot water produced similar gains, so the boost also happened with a drink that contained no caffeine. Caffeine isn’t the only possible source of the gain, which challenges Marsh’s explanation.
- Step 3
Match Chen’s reason
Why would Chen challenge the conclusion? He proposes the comforting warmth of the beverage and the short social break as reasons for the boost. He would say her conclusion isn’t supported by the findings, rather than claim that caffeine has no effect. The choice saying factors other than caffeine can also raise productivity gives his reason without going further. Choice C.