Question 79·Easy·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Cities hoping to cut urban air pollution should subsidize electric bicycles (e-bikes) and build more protected bike lanes. Because e-bikes run on rechargeable batteries, they generate zero emissions during use. If more commuters replaced car trips with e-bike rides, citywide carbon emissions would fall dramatically.
Text 2 Calling e-bikes an environmental solution is premature. Although an e-bike’s motor emits nothing directly, the electricity that charges its battery is usually produced by fossil-fuel power plants. When those upstream emissions are counted, e-bikes are not emission-free. Urban planners would therefore achieve larger pollution reductions by investing in renewable-powered public transit rather than subsidizing e-bikes.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 that e-bikes generate zero emissions?
For cross-text connection questions, first underline the specific claim or idea mentioned in Text 1, then go to Text 2 and find where the same topic is discussed (often with a contrasting or qualifying view). Summarize in your own words how Text 2 responds—does it agree, disagree, or add a condition—and identify the reason behind that response. Finally, scan the answer choices and eliminate any that introduce ideas not found in Text 2 (like new topics or motives); choose the one that accurately paraphrases Text 2’s stated criticism or support of Text 1’s claim.
Hints
Locate the exact claim being questioned
Re-read the sentence in Text 1 that includes the phrase "zero emissions." What is Text 1 saying about e-bikes and pollution?
Check how Text 2 views that claim
In Text 2, find where the author talks about e-bike emissions and whether they are really emission-free. Does the author fully agree with the "zero emissions" idea?
Notice what extra information Text 2 adds
Text 2 mentions something indirect that creates pollution when people use e-bikes. What is this thing, and how does it relate to the "zero emissions" claim?
Eliminate choices that don’t match Text 2
Ask for each answer choice: Does Text 2 ever mention this idea (like exercise benefits or commuters’ habits), or is it adding something new that the text never discusses?
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint the key claim in Text 1
Focus on the part of Text 1 that the question asks about: the statement that e-bikes "generate zero emissions during use" and that using them instead of cars would cut citywide carbon emissions.
This is a strong, absolute claim that e-bikes produce no emissions.
Identify Text 2’s main disagreement
Now look at what Text 2 says about e-bikes and emissions. Text 2 calls e-bikes as an environmental solution "premature" and says that when certain additional emissions are counted, e-bikes are "not emission-free."
Ask yourself: What extra source of emissions does Text 2 bring up that Text 1 doesn’t mention?
Connect Text 2’s criticism to the "zero emissions" claim
Text 2 explains that the electricity used to charge e-bike batteries is usually made in fossil-fuel power plants, and those power plants create pollution. This means there are emissions associated with using e-bikes, just not directly from the bike’s motor.
So, if the author of Text 2 heard someone say e-bikes generate "zero emissions," they would respond by pointing out that this ignores those indirect, or upstream, emissions.
Match that criticism to the best answer choice
Look for the option that says the claim is wrong because it leaves out the emissions from producing the electricity used to recharge the bikes. That matches Text 2’s argument exactly.
The correct answer is: C) By arguing that the claim overlooks the fossil-fuel emissions created when the bikes are recharged.