Question 79·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Successful reintroduction of large predators demands expansive, uninterrupted tracts of wilderness; without thousands of square miles for hunting and roaming, the animals cannot establish stable populations or restore ecological balance. Efforts that rely on scattered or fenced reserves, no matter how well intentioned, are therefore doomed to fail.
Text 2
Ecologists Sasha Patel and Miguel Herrera monitored a network of eleven fenced wildlife reserves, none larger than 50 square miles, where cheetahs had been recently reintroduced. Over five years, the researchers recorded a 40 percent decline in overgrazing by herbivores, an increase in native plant cover, and a resurgence of smaller carnivores once suppressed by the booming herbivore populations. Patel and Herrera conclude that, even in comparatively small, human-managed spaces, predator reintroduction can trigger the cascading ecological benefits associated with healthy food webs.
Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
For cross‑text connection questions, first underline or mentally note the key claim or idea in the referenced part of Text 1 (especially any strong words like “demands,” “only,” or “doomed”). Then read Text 2 with one purpose: decide whether it supports, weakens, qualifies, or ignores that specific claim. Summarize Text 2 in your own words, compare it directly to Text 1’s claim, and label the relationship (agree, disagree, or modify). Finally, eliminate answer choices that contradict that relationship (for example, choices that say “agree” when the evidence clearly disagrees) or that introduce details not supported by either text.
Hints
Clarify what Text 1 is insisting on
Look closely at the underlined sentence: what size and type of habitat does the author say is necessary for successful predator reintroduction?
Focus on key details in Text 2
Note the size and kind of reserves the researchers studied and whether those efforts produced failure or success.
Decide whether Text 2 supports or challenges Text 1
Ask yourself: if small, fenced reserves show strong ecological improvements, does that line up with or go against the idea that such efforts are “doomed to fail”?
Align your conclusion with an answer choice
Once you know whether the researchers would agree, disagree, or see the claim as irrelevant, pick the option that most precisely states that stance and uses details consistent with Text 2.
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint the claim in Text 1
Focus on the underlined part of Text 1. It says successful reintroduction of large predators demands expansive, uninterrupted wilderness, specifically “thousands of square miles,” and that efforts using “scattered or fenced reserves” are “doomed to fail.” This is a very strong, absolute claim: small or fenced reserves cannot work.
Summarize the findings in Text 2
Text 2 describes a network of eleven fenced wildlife reserves, each no larger than 50 square miles—much smaller than “thousands of square miles.” In these small, fenced reserves, cheetah reintroduction led to:
- 40% decline in overgrazing
- More native plant cover
- A resurgence of smaller carnivores
The authors conclude that even in small, human‑managed spaces, predator reintroduction can bring the usual ecological benefits.
Compare Text 2’s evidence to Text 1’s claim
Text 1 says fenced or small reserves are doomed to fail and cannot restore ecological balance. Text 2 reports successful ecological changes in exactly those kinds of places: small, fenced, human‑managed reserves. That means the researchers’ results contradict or challenge Text 1’s absolute claim, rather than support it or ignore it.
Match that relationship to the answer choices
We need the choice that says the researchers would push back on Text 1’s claim as too broad, using their evidence from small, fenced reserves. Choice D does exactly this: it says they would argue the claim is too sweeping because their study shows predator reintroduction can succeed in much smaller, managed reserves.