Question 66·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In a 1956 address to the American Petroleum Institute, geophysicist M. King Hubbert warned that global petroleum extraction would reach a maximum and decline long before substitutes were ready at scale. Hubbert acknowledged that improved drilling techniques could delay the peak, but he insisted that “no ingenuity can create more oil than the Earth contains,” arguing that governments should begin rationing and investing in alternatives well in advance of the inevitable downturn.
Text 2
Writing in 2022, energy-systems analyst Dr. Priya Khatri observes that the transition to wind and solar power will lessen dependence on oil, yet it will intensify demand for cobalt, lithium, and rare-earth elements used in batteries and turbines. Khatri contends that treating these minerals as effectively limitless would repeat earlier mistakes: “Ignoring geological constraints now will only postpone scarcity and magnify its social costs later.” She advocates coordinated international policies for mineral recycling and substitution.
Based on the texts, which choice best states a point of agreement between Hubbert in Text 1 and Khatri in Text 2?
For cross-text connection questions, briefly summarize each text’s main claim and recommendation (e.g., “oil is finite → plan early” and “minerals constrained → coordinate policy”). Then select the choice that captures the overlap. Eliminate choices that (1) fit only one text, (2) reverse timing (wait later vs act early), or (3) add claims the texts don’t make.
Hints
Find each author’s warning
In each text, identify what the author says will go wrong in the future if people don’t change course. What problem is Hubbert worried about? What problem is Khatri worried about?
Look at the lines about oil and minerals
In Text 1, reread the sentence with “no ingenuity can create more oil than the Earth contains.” In Text 2, focus on “geological constraints” and “postpone scarcity.” What do these lines imply about whether the resources are unlimited?
Pay attention to their proposed solutions
What actions does Hubbert recommend? What does Khatri recommend? Are they describing a wait-and-see approach, or planning and policy responses?
Test each choice against BOTH texts
A correct answer must be supported by both passages. Eliminate any option that fits only one text, adds an unsupported claim, or changes the authors’ timing (waiting vs planning early).
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand each author’s main concern
In Text 1, Hubbert warns that oil production will peak and then decline before substitutes are ready, so society must prepare early.
In Text 2, Khatri warns that the transition to wind and solar will increase demand for minerals (cobalt, lithium, rare earths) and that ignoring geological limits will lead to future scarcity and social costs.
Identify the shared assumption about resource limits
Hubbert states that “no ingenuity can create more oil than the Earth contains,” emphasizing a physical limit on extraction.
Khatri similarly cautions against treating critical minerals as “effectively limitless” and highlights “geological constraints.”
So both authors assume certain natural resources are finite.
Connect the shared assumption to their recommendations
Hubbert recommends governments begin rationing and investing in alternatives well before the downturn.
Khatri advocates coordinated policies such as mineral recycling and substitution.
Both therefore support proactive management/planning in response to finiteness.
Match the shared idea to the choices
The option stating “Some natural resources are finite and therefore require proactive management.” matches both texts because it combines (1) resource finiteness and (2) the need for planning and policy action.
The option about waiting until limits are imminent conflicts with both authors’ emphasis on acting in advance.
The option claiming technology/substitutes usually remove the need for rationing or coordinated policy goes against Hubbert’s call for rationing/investment and Khatri’s call for coordinated international policies.
The option suggesting recycling reduces the need for long-term planning contradicts Khatri’s warning about constraints and Hubbert’s insistence on early preparation.