For cross-text connection questions, summarize each text’s position in a few words (e.g., “Text 1: neonicotinoids caused decline; ban them now” vs. “Text 2: many stressors; need experimental proof before blaming one”). Then find where Text 2 directly evaluates the kind of recommendation Text 1 makes. Choose the option that matches Text 2’s level of certainty and its stance (agree/disagree/qualify), and eliminate choices that add stronger claims than Text 2 makes.
Hints
- Hint 1
Clarify what Meister is proposing
Look back at Text 1: what specific action does Meister recommend, and how strongly does he seem to feel about neonicotinoids being the cause of the insect decline?
- Hint 2
Focus on the key sentences in Text 2
In Text 2, reread the first and last sentences. How does the author describe the problem of having several stressors at once, and what do they say should happen before a pesticide ban is accepted?
- Hint 3
Compare levels of certainty
Is the author of Text 2 as certain as Meister that neonicotinoids are the main cause? Or do they emphasize uncertainty and other possible causes? Eliminate options that show a level of certainty that does not match Text 2.
- Hint 4
Check for claims Text 2 does not make
Some choices either (a) endorse an immediate moratorium, (b) say climate factors are more likely than pesticides, or (c) suggest relying on observation rather than experiments. Identify which of those positions Text 2 actually supports and eliminate the rest.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Understand Meister’s claim and recommendation (Text 1)
In Text 1, Meister analyzes 40 years of data from central European meadows and concludes that neonicotinoid pesticides are the principal driver of insect decline. He says he has ruled out habitat loss and light pollution and notes that the sharp decline coincides with the introduction of neonicotinoids. Based on this, he recommends an “immediate moratorium” (a temporary ban) on those pesticides.
- Step 2
Identify the main point of Text 2
Text 2 stresses that when multiple potential stressors act simultaneously, it is “unusually difficult to isolate a single culprit.” Using the same meadows, it notes other major changes over the same period: warming, more frequent spring droughts, and heavier autumn rainfall. The key idea is that any one of these shifts—or their interaction—could depress insect numbers.
- Step 3
Locate Text 2’s stance on a pesticide ban
Text 2 warns: “Before embracing a pesticide ban as a panacea, we should demonstrate experimentally that removing neonicotinoids alone reverses the decline.” That means the author (1) is not ready to embrace an immediate moratorium and (2) thinks we need experimental evidence showing neonicotinoids by themselves are driving the decline.
- Step 4
Match that stance to the answer choices
Text 2 is cautious and evidence-focused: it argues we should not treat banning neonicotinoids as an obvious fix because other environmental changes could be responsible and we need experiments before adopting a ban. Therefore, the best match is:
They would argue that a pesticide ban is premature because other environmental factors might be equally or more responsible for the insect decline.