Question 182·Hard·Rhetorical Synthesis
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Suzanne Simard is a forest ecologist.
- She discovered that underground fungal networks facilitate resource sharing between trees.
- Her findings challenged the prevailing belief that trees compete for resources.
- The research showed that mature trees can transfer carbon and nutrients to seedlings.
- These insights have influenced modern sustainable forestry practices.
The student wants to highlight how Simard’s discovery changed scientific understanding of tree interactions. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
For rhetorical synthesis questions like this, always start by underlining or mentally highlighting the goal stated in the question (for example, “how X changed understanding of Y”). Next, scan the notes and pick out only the details that directly support that goal—often this means combining a finding with its impact or contrast to an earlier view. Then, check each answer choice: eliminate any that (1) leave out part of the goal (such as the “change in understanding”), (2) add extra but irrelevant details, or (3) focus on side effects (like applications) instead of the specific purpose given in the question. Choose the option that most directly and completely fulfills the stated goal using relevant note information.
Hints
Focus on the student’s goal
Underline the part of the question that states the goal: the student wants to highlight how the discovery changed scientific understanding of tree interactions. Keep this exact idea in mind.
Pick the relevant notes first
Look back at the notes and ask: which bullets talk not just about what Simard did, but about how her work challenged or changed earlier ideas about trees?
Test each choice against the goal
For each answer option, ask: does this sentence (1) mention Simard’s discovery about how trees interact, and (2) clearly show that it replaced or overturned a previous belief about tree behavior?
Eliminate partial matches
If a choice only describes what she found, or only mentions effects on practices, but does not explain a change in scientific understanding of tree interactions, cross it out.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the task in the question
The question asks: “The student wants to highlight how Simard’s discovery changed scientific understanding of tree interactions.”
So the sentence must do two things:
- Refer to Simard’s discovery about trees.
- Explain how it changed what scientists previously thought about how trees interact.
Find the relevant notes
Look at the notes and decide which ones speak about a change in understanding:
- "She discovered that underground fungal networks facilitate resource sharing between trees." (what she found)
- "Her findings challenged the prevailing belief that trees compete for resources." (how it changed understanding)
These two points together match the goal: they describe both tree cooperation and the fact that this challenged the older view of competition.
Compare each answer choice to the goal
Now, check each option against the goal:
- Does it mention Simard’s discovery about how trees interact?
- Does it show that this discovery changed a previous belief about those interactions?
Only a choice that clearly does both is acceptable.
Select the choice that uses the right information
Choice B says that Simard revealed that trees cooperate via fungal networks (resource sharing) and that this overturned the long-held view that they only compete. This directly combines the two key notes and clearly shows how scientific understanding of tree interactions changed.
Therefore, the correct answer is: By revealing that trees cooperate via fungal networks, Simard overturned the long-held view that they merely compete for resources.