Question 64·Easy·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
On a dried prehistoric lakeshore in East Africa, archaeologists uncovered four parallel sets of fossilized footprints: two large and two considerably smaller. Based on stride length and depth, the research team argues that the larger tracks were made by adults and the smaller by children. Because the tracks run side by side for over 30 meters, the team contends that the pattern demonstrates that a prehistoric couple and their children traveled together as a cohesive family unit.
Text 2
Paleoanthropologist Dr. Elena Ortiz cautions against drawing firm conclusions about social bonds from trackways alone. She notes that strong winds and shifting sands can expose older footprints and create the illusion that prints of different ages were made at the same moment. Ortiz argues that footprint size or proximity does not necessarily indicate familial relationships; young individuals from neighboring groups, for instance, might have followed in the steps of unrelated adults at a later time.
Based on the texts, what would Dr. Ortiz (Text 2) most likely say about the interpretation presented in the bolded portion of Text 1?
For cross-text questions asking what one author would say about another’s claim, first summarize each text’s main point in a few words (e.g., Text 1: strong proof of family; Text 2: be cautious, not definite). Then, ask whether the second author would agree, disagree, or qualify the first author’s statement. Eliminate answer choices that add new ideas not found in either text, that are more extreme than what the second author actually says, or that contradict their stated cautions. Finally, pick the choice that best captures how the second author would respond to the specific claim mentioned in the question, matching both tone (cautious vs. certain) and content.
Hints
Focus on the bolded claim in Text 1
Look carefully at what the research team is claiming in the bolded sentence. How strong and specific is their conclusion about the people who made the tracks?
Identify Dr. Ortiz’s attitude in Text 2
In Text 2, find the sentence where Ortiz expresses her main concern about using trackways to understand social bonds. Does she fully agree with the strong claim in Text 1, or does she urge caution?
Compare reasoning, not just topic
Both texts discuss the same footprints, but the question asks what Ortiz would say about the interpretation in Text 1. Think about whether she would support that interpretation, weaken it, or offer an alternative explanation.
Check wording carefully in the answer choices
Pay attention to extreme words like "cannot" or "impossible" and to claims that sound more certain than Ortiz is. Which choice best reflects her idea that trackways alone are not definitive proof?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the claim in Text 1 (bolded part)
The bolded sentence in Text 1 says the parallel footprints demonstrate that "a prehistoric couple and their children traveled together as a cohesive family unit." This is a strong, confident claim about who the individuals were (a couple and their children) and about their social bond (a cohesive family).
Identify Dr. Ortiz’s main point in Text 2
Dr. Ortiz "cautions against drawing firm conclusions about social bonds from trackways alone." She explains that:
- Winds and sands can expose older prints so they look like they were made at the same time.
- She says footprint size or proximity does not necessarily indicate familial relationships.
- She gives an alternative: young individuals from neighboring groups might have followed unrelated adults later.
Connect Ortiz’s view to the bolded claim
The bolded claim treats the track pattern as proof of a specific family unit traveling together. Ortiz argues this kind of social conclusion is not reliable, because:
- The apparent togetherness may be an illusion created by different-aged prints.
- Even if the prints are close together and different sizes, that doesn’t prove they’re a family; they could be unrelated individuals from different groups.
Match her view to the best answer choice
We need the choice that captures Ortiz’s skeptical attitude: she thinks the tracks might look like a family group traveling together but do not truly prove that. Choice D—"The arrangement of tracks may reflect coincidence rather than evidence of a specific family group"—best matches her caution that size and proximity do not necessarily show familial relationships and that unrelated individuals at different times could create a similar pattern.