Question 130·200 Super-Hard SAT Reading Questions·Craft and Structure
Text 1
Ecologist Mina Serrano argues that researchers should distinguish a social cue's influence on behavior from the value of acting on that cue. Evidence that making a cue available changes an animal's choice can establish cue use. But to determine whether animals rely on the cue less under one environmental condition than another, researchers should not simply compare choice rates when the cue is available: those rates may partly reflect differences in choices that would occur without the cue. Instead, researchers should compare the effect of cue availability within each condition. Whether acting on the cue improves the outcome should be assessed separately.
Text 2
Asha Malik and colleagues studied nectar-feeding bats under two schedules. Under the persistent schedule, a feeder cluster visited by a demonstrator was replenished before a focal bat's release; under the fleeting schedule, the nectar was moved elsewhere. A screen revealed or concealed only the demonstrator's return corridor, while other sights, sounds, and feeder odors were held constant across screen conditions. When the corridor was visible, 72 percent of bats under the persistent schedule and 56 percent under the fleeting schedule chose the demonstrated cluster. When the corridor was concealed, the corresponding rates were 51 percent and 35 percent. Seeing the route shortened search time only under the persistent schedule. The researchers concluded that the bats used the route, that the route's value depended on resource persistence, and that the bats reduced their reliance on it under the fleeting schedule, citing the lower visible-corridor choice rate in that schedule.
Based on the texts, how would Serrano most likely evaluate Malik and colleagues' conclusion?
For demanding cross-text questions, convert the first text's framework into separate tests and apply each test to the second text's evidence. When conditions have different baselines, compare the cue-present and cue-absent results within each condition before comparing conditions, and keep behavioral influence separate from practical benefit.
Hints
Separate the three claims
Identify which evidence concerns cue use, which concerns the cue's influence on choice, and which concerns the practical outcome of following it.
Account for the baseline
For each schedule, subtract the concealed-corridor choice rate from the visible-corridor choice rate rather than comparing only the two visible-corridor rates.
Interpret each measure
Consider what a change in cluster selection reveals and what a change in search time reveals. The two measures address different parts of the conclusion.
Step-by-step Explanation
Apply Serrano's framework
Serrano distinguishes three questions: whether the bats used the route, whether the route influenced them by different amounts under the two schedules, and whether following it improved their search outcome.
Compare the visibility effects
Under the persistent schedule, revealing the corridor increased selection of the demonstrated cluster by percentage points. Under the fleeting schedule, it increased selection by percentage points. Thus, access to the route influenced cluster choice by the same amount under both schedules, even though the raw visible-corridor rates differed.
Evaluate the route's value
Seeing the route shortened search time only under the persistent schedule. This supports the claim that following the route was useful when the resource persisted but not when it had moved.
Evaluate the complete conclusion
The visibility effects support route use, and the search-time results support condition-dependent value. However, the equal 21-point effects on cluster choice do not support the claim that the bats reduced their reliance on the route under the fleeting schedule.