Question 75·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Plant geneticist Dr. Elena Alvarez analyzed the genomes of several wild coffee species that thrive in equatorial regions where average temperatures exceed 30 °C. She identified three genes that, when highly expressed, correlate strongly with stable bean production under heat stress. Alvarez therefore recommends editing those genes into cultivated Coffea arabica, asserting that “targeted genomic modification is the most direct route to safeguarding global coffee yields in a warming climate.”
Text 2
Agricultural ecologist Dr. Kwame Mensah argues that Alvarez’s proposal focuses too narrowly on a plant’s DNA. Citing field trials in Ghana, Mensah notes that arabica seedlings engineered with the heat-resistance genes performed no better than unedited controls unless they were grown in soils rich in specific mycorrhizal fungi. He concludes that “heat tolerance in coffee emerges from interactions among plant genes, root-associated microbes, and local soil chemistry; ignoring any one component undermines the whole strategy.”
Based on the texts, how would Mensah (Text 2) most likely characterize Alvarez’s recommendation (Text 1)?
For cross-text questions, first summarize each text’s main point in a short phrase (for example, “genes are the key solution” vs. “genes plus microbes and soil are all needed”). Then look for any direct comments one author makes about the other’s idea, especially words that show tone (like “too narrowly,” “ignores,” or “undermines”). Eliminate choices that introduce topics not in the passages or that don’t match the author’s stated critique, and select the option that best captures both the content and attitude of the response.
Hints
Compare each author’s focus
First, note what Alvarez in Text 1 thinks is the main solution to heat stress in coffee plants, then see what part of that idea Mensah in Text 2 challenges.
Look for critical language in Text 2
In Text 2, find the sentence where Mensah directly comments on Alvarez’s proposal. Is his tone approving or critical? What wording shows this?
Pay attention to what Mensah adds
Mensah brings in extra factors (like certain organisms in the soil and local conditions). Ask: does he think gene editing alone is enough, or that additional pieces are necessary before such a recommendation really works?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Alvarez’s main claim in Text 1
Look at what Alvarez recommends and how strongly she phrases it.
- She “identified three genes” that correlate with stable bean production under heat stress.
- She “recommends editing those genes into cultivated Coffea arabica.”
- She asserts that “targeted genomic modification is the most direct route to safeguarding global coffee yields in a warming climate.”
So Alvarez is confident that changing the plant’s genes is the main and best way to protect coffee from rising temperatures.
Understand Mensah’s criticism in Text 2
Now see how Mensah responds to that idea.
- He says Alvarez’s proposal “focuses too narrowly on a plant’s DNA.” That is a direct criticism.
- In his Ghana field trials, seedlings with the heat-resistance genes “performed no better than unedited controls unless they were grown in soils rich in specific mycorrhizal fungi.”
- He concludes that heat tolerance “emerges from interactions among plant genes, root-associated microbes, and local soil chemistry; ignoring any one component undermines the whole strategy.”
Mensah’s key point: genes alone are not enough; soil microbes and chemistry are also essential, and leaving them out weakens the whole plan.
Infer how Mensah would judge Alvarez’s recommendation
Combine the two perspectives.
- Alvarez presents gene editing as the most direct route and seems confident it will safeguard coffee.
- Mensah provides evidence that the gene-edited plants did not succeed without certain fungi and soil conditions.
- He explicitly says focusing only on DNA and “ignoring any one component undermines the whole strategy.”
So Mensah would likely say Alvarez’s recommendation goes ahead too confidently before accounting for all necessary factors (microbes and soil), rather than defending it as already sufficient.
Match that judgment to the answer choices
Now check each option against Mensah’s view:
- As insufficiently supported (correlations vs. field trials): Mensah’s critique isn’t that Alvarez lacks field trials; he challenges her gene-only framing and emphasizes the need to include soil microbes/chemistry.
- As misguided (soil chemistry rather than fungi): Mensah argues that heat tolerance depends on interactions, including mycorrhizal fungi; he does not replace fungi with soil chemistry as the “primary” driver.
- As overgeneralized (wild species won’t translate): Mensah does not claim Alvarez’s findings can’t transfer across regions; his evidence focuses on the missing soil-microbe component.
- As premature, because it overlooks the essential role of soil microbiomes in conferring heat tolerance to coffee plants: This directly matches Mensah’s point that engineered seedlings didn’t outperform controls without specific mycorrhizal fungi and that ignoring microbes undermines the strategy.
Therefore, the best answer is: As premature, because it overlooks the essential role of soil microbiomes in conferring heat tolerance to coffee plants.