A question about two texts tests how one writer would respond to the other’s claim. Read the question to find who answers and which claim they’re judging. Sum up the marked claim and its reason, then find the responding writer’s evidence. Decide whether the response rejects, qualifies, or extends the claim: says it’s wrong or unsupported, limits it, or takes it further. Check the reason and strength, because doubting a claim isn’t the same as proving it false.
Hints
- Hint 1
Start with the bolded claim in Text 1. Separate the team’s conclusion from the tracks it uses as evidence.
- Hint 2
Read Ortiz’s examples in Text 2 and look at how certain her words are. What do those examples let you conclude about the claim in bold?
Step-by-step
Claim, response, and strength
Step 1Identify the claim Ortiz must judge
Read the bolded claim that a prehistoric couple and their children traveled together as a cohesive family unit. What is Ortiz being asked to judge? The tracks run side by side for over 30 meters, but the team goes further: it claims a family relationship and shared travel, not only nearby footprints.
- Step 2
Find Ortiz’s reason for doubt
Ortiz says footprint size or proximity does not necessarily indicate familial relationships. Why might nearby prints fail to prove that a family traveled together? Wind and sand can expose older prints, so tracks made at different times can look as though they were made together. She rejects the claim of proof, because nearby tracks alone don’t tell us whether the walkers were together or related.
- Step 3
Match how certain Ortiz is
How certain is Ortiz about what happened? Her example says young people might have followed in the steps of unrelated adults at a later time, so her alternative is possible, not proven. The phrase may reflect coincidence keeps that caution while questioning the claimed family connection. Choice D.