Question 84·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
An analysis published in AeroFuture argues that solid-state batteries will revolutionize aviation within the next decade. According to the authors, by 2035 regional aircraft carrying up to 100 passengers will routinely fly distances of 800 kilometers without emitting carbon dioxide, making short-haul air travel “effectively guilt-free.” The article points to rapid year-over-year gains in battery energy density as evidence that the technological milestones needed for such flights are already "clearly within reach."
Text 2
A recent report from the independent group FlightMetrics tempers expectations about battery-powered aviation. Although the report acknowledges improvements in solid-state chemistry, it notes that current prototypes still deliver less than half the energy per kilogram required for 800-kilometer trips in 100-seat planes. FlightMetrics concludes that even with optimistic rates of progress, viable commercial service is unlikely before 2045 because additional obstacles—such as certifying new battery safety standards and redesigning aircraft frames—remain unresolved.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the prediction presented in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, summarize each text’s claim in a few words (for example, “confident about 2035” vs. “skeptical; says not before 2045”). Then identify exactly what Text 2 challenges (data, timeline, or feasibility) and choose the option that captures that relationship without adding new topics or changing the scenario (like swapping to different aircraft types).
Hints
Pin down Text 1’s main prediction
Focus on the sentence in Text 1 that mentions the year 2035. What exactly is being claimed will happen by that year, and what is the tone—cautious or confident?
Examine how Text 2 responds to that kind of claim
Look at the phrases "tempers expectations," the comparison of prototype energy to what’s required, and the year 2045. Does Text 2 seem more optimistic or more skeptical than Text 1 about how soon this will be practical?
Connect the attitude to an answer choice
Ask yourself: Would the author of Text 2 agree with Text 1, qualify it, or argue that it overlooks important problems and timing? Then choose the option that best fits that stance.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what Text 1 is predicting
Text 1 claims that by 2035 regional planes with up to 100 passengers will regularly fly 800 km with no CO₂ emissions, making travel “guilt-free.” It supports this with evidence of rapid gains in battery energy density and says key milestones are “clearly within reach,” which is an optimistic prediction about timing and feasibility.
Understand Text 2’s overall attitude toward that prediction
Text 2 says it "tempers expectations," meaning it is less optimistic. It acknowledges improvements but stresses that current prototypes have less than half the needed energy per kilogram and that other issues—like safety certification and aircraft redesign—are unresolved. It concludes viable commercial service is unlikely before 2045, which is well after 2035.
Compare the two timelines and explanations
Text 1 expects routine, carbon-free 800 km flights in 100-seat planes by 2035, while Text 2 says commercial service is unlikely before 2045 because of both performance shortfalls and additional technical/regulatory obstacles. So Text 2 would see Text 1’s timeline as too optimistic.
Match that relationship to the best answer choice
Evaluate the choices against Text 2:
- Choice 1 suggests Text 2 would treat Text 1’s timeline as basically reasonable if recent improvements continue, but Text 2 explicitly concludes service is unlikely before 2045 even with optimistic progress.
- Choice 2 shifts the claim to much smaller aircraft; Text 2’s response is about the feasibility of 800 km trips in 100-seat planes and pushes that scenario past 2035 rather than reframing it as a different aircraft category.
- Choice 4 claims certification/redesign are the main barriers instead of energy density, but Text 2 stresses a major energy-density shortfall and additional obstacles.
Thus, the best match is: It is premature because key technical and regulatory challenges make the 2035 timeline improbable.