A question about how one author would respond to another tests whether you can connect their claims and reasons. Use the question to find who answers whom, then separate the study’s result from its conclusion. Read the responding text to see whether it questions the conclusion, limits it, or takes it further. Check the reason and its strength, because a choice can take the right view while saying more than the author does.
Hints
- Hint 1
At the end of Text 1, separate the boarding count from the analyst’s conclusion. What does the analyst think the increase shows?
- Hint 2
In Text 2, find what the researcher says a study must separate. Why would that matter when judging the pilot?
- Hint 3
Compare the researcher’s words premature and may. Ask how sure the researcher is about what caused the rise.
Step-by-step
Judge the conclusion by the researcher’s caution
Step 1Separate the result from the conclusion
The question names the author of Text 2 as the person responding. What conclusion must the researcher judge? Boardings were 40% higher than in the previous quarter, so the analyst says price is the main barrier and fare removal is the best step. The analyst uses the size of the rise to name its main cause.
- Step 2
Find what would separate the possible causes
How could we tell what fare removal caused? Text 2 asks for a study design that isolates the effect of price, meaning a way to separate fares from other changes. Pilots may also have better service and publicity, and often run in spring and summer, when transit use is typically higher. These are possible causes, not findings about Grantham, so we can’t say which one drove its increase.
- Step 3
See how strongly the researcher responds
The researcher says attributing most of the increase to the removal of fares is premature. Does that accept the analyst’s conclusion with a small limit? No: the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion yet. The researcher questions the main cause, not whether the rise occurred or whether fares had any effect.
- Step 4
Match the reason without adding certainty
The response using could reasonably be explained keeps the other causes as possibilities. Its service changes and publicity match more frequent service, expanded routes, and extensive publicity, while its seasonal patterns match the spring and summer timing. It leaves the main cause open, so should not be attributed primarily challenges the analyst without declaring fares ineffective. Choice D.