A question about how one author would respond to another tests whether you can connect their views and reasons. Start with the question to find who answers whom and which recommendation is being judged. Then put each text’s main claim and its reason in a few words. Ask whether the responding author would reject the recommendation, accept it with a limit, or carry it further. Check the author’s own reason, because choices can share a judgment but give different reasons for it.
Hints
- Hint 1
Find who is judging whose recommendation in the question, then return to Alvarez’s final sentence.
- Hint 2
Find the condition in Mensah’s field trials. What does the word unless tell you to check?
- Hint 3
Connect the trials to Mensah’s conclusion. Which parts does he say must work together?
Step-by-step
Find the response and its reason
Step 1Identify the recommendation being judged
Alvarez says targeted genomic modification is the most direct route, based on genes that correlate strongly with stable bean production under heat stress. Who is judging her recommendation? The question asks for Mensah’s view of the plan to edit cultivated arabica, so his reasons must decide the answer.
- Step 2
Read the condition in the trial
What happened when the genes were tested in arabica? Engineered seedlings performed no better than unedited controls unless they grew in soils rich in specific mycorrhizal fungi. Unless means except when, so without those fungi, the edited plants did no better than the unedited plants. Mensah’s evidence points to genes that need soil support, not genes that protect yields on their own.
- Step 3
Use Mensah’s specific reason
Which limit does Mensah’s conclusion add? It links plant genes, root-associated microbes, and local soil chemistry, so he would accept the recommendation only with a limit. The choice about genomic correlations rather than demonstrated yield gains questions the evidence Alvarez used, while a few wild equatorial species questions whether her findings apply to all cultivated arabica growing conditions. Neither gives Mensah’s stated reason: the editing plan leaves out needed soil microbes.
- Step 4
Match both the target and the reason
Alvarez’s proposal focuses too narrowly on a plant’s DNA, so As misguided misstates her focus by saying she favors soil chemistry. Which choice gives Mensah’s own reason? As premature does because it points to the overlooked soil microbiomes, the soil microbes the engineered plants need for the genes to help in the trials. Choice B.