Question 99·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Marine ecologists often estimate ocean microplastic abundance using ship-towed neuston nets. While this method can capture broad patterns at the surface, the distribution of microplastics is highly patchy and changes with wind, currents, and vertical mixing. Deep layers are rarely sampled, and brief expeditions cannot track rapid shifts in concentration. Given these constraints, the authors conclude that global totals for ocean microplastics will unavoidably remain approximate because the available data are too sparse and inconsistent to support precise estimates.
Text 2
Engineers report results from a network of autonomous profiling floats fitted with laser-based Raman sensors that identify and count microplastic particles in situ from the surface to 1,000 meters. The floats repeat vertical profiles weekly and transmit data to a central repository, where measurements are calibrated against laboratory standards and assimilated into circulation models. The team contends that this approach addresses both the patchiness of surface sampling and the lack of depth coverage, producing spatially and temporally resolved measurements that, when aggregated, yield robust global estimates.
Based on the texts, how would the team in Text 2 most likely respond to the bolded claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, first restate the specific claim in Text 1 (especially the bolded sentence) and the reason given for it. Then identify whether Text 2 supports, qualifies, or contradicts that claim by pointing to overlapping topics (here: sampling limits and the possibility of global totals). Choose the option that accurately captures that relationship using only ideas grounded in the texts, avoiding choices that shift the main issue or change the authors’ level of confidence.
Hints
Locate the key claim in Text 1
Reread the bolded sentence in Text 1. What are the authors claiming about global totals, and what reasons do they give for that claim?
Find what Text 2 says it fixes
In Text 2, look for phrases showing how the floats address patchiness, depth coverage, and changes over time. Which Text 1 limitations are they responding to?
Compare the stances
Does Text 2 sound optimistic or pessimistic about producing global totals? Would that stance agree with “unavoidably remain approximate,” or push back against it?
Watch for subtle partial-agreement traps
Some choices may admit sampling is hard but still conclude totals must remain approximate. The best answer should reflect Text 2’s claim that the new system yields robust global estimates.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s bolded claim and its reasoning
The bolded sentence in Text 1 claims that global totals for ocean microplastics will unavoidably remain approximate.
Text 1 supports this by pointing to problems with common sampling: surface-focused nets, highly patchy distribution, changing winds/currents/mixing, rare deep sampling, and short expeditions that miss rapid shifts.
Extract Text 2’s key counter-claim
Text 2 describes autonomous profiling floats that:
- Measure in situ from the surface to 1,000 meters
- Repeat profiles weekly (better time resolution)
- Calibrate measurements and assimilate them into circulation models
Crucially, Text 2 explicitly argues this approach addresses surface patchiness and lack of depth coverage, and that aggregated measurements yield robust global estimates.
Determine Text 2’s likely response to Text 1
Because Text 2 claims its method fixes the specific limitations Text 1 uses to justify “unavoidably approximate,” the Text 2 team would most likely disagree with Text 1’s pessimism and argue that improved, repeated, depth-resolved sampling can reduce uncertainty enough to support reliable global totals.
Select the choice that matches that relationship
The correct option must show Text 2 challenging the idea that global totals must remain approximate by citing the benefits of repeated, depth-resolved measurement.
The statement that matches Text 2 is:
They would argue that their depth-resolved, repeatedly collected measurements reduce uncertainty enough to support reliable global estimates, challenging the claim that totals must remain approximate.