A question about two texts tests how one author would respond to a claim in the other text. Read the question to find who answers whom, especially when it points to an underlined claim. Then put that claim and its reason in a few words, and do the same for the responding text. Decide how the author responds: does the author reject the claim, accept it with limits, or take it further? Check that the response uses that author's own reason.
Hints
- Hint 1
Look at the conclusion in the underlined sentence. What reason does Text 1 give for that conclusion?
- Hint 2
Follow the turn at However in Text 2. What does the explanation about blood vessels and immune cells add to the author's view of inflammation?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim and the response
Step 1Pin down the claim
The question names the author of Text 2 as the one responding. What is that author answering? The underlined claim says Therefore, inflammation is mainly an unfortunate side effect of injury. Text 1 takes this view because inflammation can cause discomfort around a healing cut, so we're testing its negative view of inflammation's role.
- Step 2
Find Text 2's stance
What does Text 2 add to that view? It allows that inflammation can damage healthy tissue, but says a moderate inflammatory response plays an important role in healing. Wider blood vessels let immune cells reach the injury and fight microbes, so discomfort isn't the whole story. The author would qualify the claim, which means accept part of it while adding a limit.
- Step 3
Check the response and its reason
Which choice gives that response for Text 2's own reason? The phrase can cause discomfort keeps the downside described in Text 1, while also helps defend an injury against infection matches the immune cells' job to fight microbes that could cause infection. Choice A.