Question 66·Hard·Rhetorical Synthesis
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
• Marine biologist Dr. Emma Li warns that microplastics in soil can inhibit earthworm digestion.
• Li found that earthworms exposed to high microplastic levels processed 30% less organic material.
• Environmental engineer Carlos Mendes argues that the greatest threat of microplastics to agriculture is their ability to absorb pesticides, concentrating toxins.
• Mendes’s 2023 study showed polystyrene beads absorbed up to 40% of applied glyphosate within 24 hours.
• The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that farmland receives more microplastic contamination than oceans each year.
The student wants to highlight how microplastics can intensify chemical toxicity in soil.
Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
For rhetorical synthesis questions with notes and a stated goal, start by underlining key words in the goal (here, “intensify chemical toxicity in soil”). Then scan the notes to find the one(s) that directly match that idea, ignoring details that relate to different issues (like animal behavior or general pollution levels). Finally, choose the answer that accurately restates the relevant note and clearly fulfills the goal, and eliminate any choices that are only loosely related, overly general, or focused on a different effect than the one named in the question.
Hints
Restate the goal in simpler words
The question is not just about microplastics being bad; it is specifically about how they make chemicals in the soil more poisonous or concentrated. Keep that in mind as you read the choices.
Find the most relevant notes
Look back at the bullet points: which one(s) talk about microplastics interacting with chemicals (like pesticides) rather than about animals (earthworms) or overall pollution levels?
Eliminate off-topic choices
For each answer choice, ask: Does this sentence clearly explain how microplastics increase the toxicity of chemicals in soil, or is it just describing another kind of harm or a general problem?
Focus on cause-and-effect
You want a sentence that shows a cause-and-effect relationship where microplastics cause chemicals in soil to become more concentrated or more dangerous. Which option does that?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the student's goal
The prompt states that the student wants to highlight how microplastics can intensify chemical toxicity in soil. That means the best choice must:
- Involve microplastics
- Involve chemicals (like pesticides)
- Show that microplastics make those chemicals more toxic or more concentrated in the soil
Identify the relevant notes
Look at the bullet-point notes and ask which ones deal with chemical toxicity:
- Li's notes are about earthworm digestion and organic material (soil fertility), not chemicals.
- The FAO note is about how much microplastic contamination farmland receives, not about chemical toxicity.
- Mendes's notes say microplastics can absorb pesticides, thereby concentrating toxins.
Only Mendes's notes directly explain how microplastics interact with chemicals and intensify toxicity.
Match the notes to the answer choices
Now compare each answer choice to the goal and the notes:
- One choice should clearly talk about microplastics absorbing pesticides and concentrating toxins in soil.
- The other choices focus on earthworm digestion, overall contamination levels, or a general threat to farmland rather than specifically on chemical toxicity.
Pick the option that directly states the pesticide absorption and toxin concentration idea from Mendes's study.
Select the answer that best matches the goal and notes
The correct choice is C) Mendes found that microplastics can “absorb up to 40% of applied glyphosate within 24 hours,” dramatically concentrating toxins in the soil. This option uses Mendes’s specific finding and clearly shows how microplastics make chemical toxins in the soil more intense by absorbing and concentrating a pesticide.