Question 8·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Disposable forks, cups, and grocery bags litter coastlines and clog waterways. Single-use plastics cannot be recycled efficiently, so society must phase them out completely within the next five years. Nothing less will protect marine life and curb mounting waste.
Text 2
Phasing out single-use plastics in so short a time is unrealistic. Several startups are already refining chemical-recycling methods that turn used plastic into new resin at a reasonable cost. Cities such as Los Angeles have begun pilot programs using this technology, and early data show diversion rates rising. Rather than banning disposable plastics outright, governments should invest in these emerging recycling systems while encouraging the development of biodegradable alternatives.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the bolded claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, start by clearly summarizing the specific claim or sentence mentioned in the first text, then ask: does the second text agree, disagree, or modify this idea? Identify the second author’s main argument and key evidence, especially about the same topic (here, recycling vs. phasing out plastics), and then eliminate answer choices that contradict what the second text explicitly says or add new ideas not mentioned. Finally, pick the choice that best matches the second text’s stance toward the exact claim from the first text, not just its general topic.
Hints
Locate the key claim in Text 1
Reread the bolded sentence in Text 1. What does it say about how efficiently single-use plastics can be recycled, and what does it say must happen because of that?
Determine Text 2’s position on timing and solutions
Look for how Text 2 describes the idea of phasing out single-use plastics within five years. Does the author agree that this is necessary and realistic, or do they propose something different?
Focus on what Text 2 says about recycling
Pay attention to the sentences about startups, chemical-recycling methods, and pilot programs. Do these details suggest that recycling is improving or that it is hopeless?
Eliminate answers that contradict Text 2
Remove any choices where Text 2 would be clearly opposed—for example, options that say recycling is still inefficient, that no regulation is needed, or that the solution is to move production overseas.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the bolded claim in Text 1
Focus on the bolded sentence in Text 1: “Single-use plastics cannot be recycled efficiently, so society must phase them out completely within the next five years.”
This claim has two linked ideas:
- Recycling single-use plastics cannot be efficient.
- Because of that, society must completely phase them out within five years.
So Text 1 is arguing that elimination, not better recycling, is the only realistic solution, and it should happen quickly.
Identify Text 2’s main response and attitude
Now look at how Text 2 talks about the same issue.
Key points from Text 2:
- It calls phasing out single-use plastics in such a short time “unrealistic.”
- It says startups are refining chemical-recycling methods that turn used plastic into new resin “at a reasonable cost.”
- It notes that cities like Los Angeles have pilot programs and “early data show diversion rates rising.”
- It concludes that instead of banning plastics outright, governments should invest in emerging recycling systems and encourage biodegradable alternatives.
Text 2 believes better recycling is becoming more practical and prefers improving systems over a fast, total ban.
Connect Text 2’s ideas directly to the bolded claim
Compare the bolded claim in Text 1 with the evidence and recommendations in Text 2.
- Text 1 says recycling cannot be efficient, leading to a required total phase-out in five years.
- Text 2 says:
- A five-year phase-out is unrealistic.
- New recycling technology is making recycling more feasible and cost-effective.
- The solution is to invest in these systems instead of banning single-use plastics outright.
So, the author of Text 2 would challenge both parts of Text 1’s claim: the idea that efficient recycling is impossible and the need for a rapid, complete phase-out.
Match this relationship to the best answer choice
Now, look for the answer choice that reflects Text 2’s challenge to Text 1.
- The correct choice must show that Text 2 believes recycling is becoming more practical and therefore disagrees with the need for a total, quick phase-out.
- Choice C says “By arguing that recent advances make recycling single-use plastics increasingly practical, undermining the need for a total phase-out.”
This exactly matches Text 2’s points about new chemical-recycling methods, rising diversion rates, and the recommendation to invest in recycling rather than impose an outright ban, so C is the correct answer.