Translate the rhetorical goal into two required claims: one showing how the later study supports the earlier proposal and one showing how it limits that proposal. Then test each option for evidentiary precision, especially absolute language, claims that separate factors studied together, and conclusions that extend beyond the specific garden arrangements described.
Hints
- Hint 1
Separate support from qualification
Identify one later finding that is consistent with the earlier proposal and another that limits how broadly the proposal applies.
- Hint 2
Preserve the strength of the evidence
Distinguish a relative tendency from a claim that a type of garden usually or always succeeded or failed.
- Hint 3
Check scope and causation
Look for choices that generalize beyond the garden types studied or attribute the result to one feature when the notes describe multiple features together.
Step-by-step
- Step 1
Identify the earlier proposal
The 2017 researchers proposed that urban milkweed gardens can serve as migratory stepping stones because monarchs fed at the gardens and then departed southwest.
- Step 2
Determine how the later study modifies the proposal
The 2023 study found monarch use of both isolated and connected gardens, supporting the general possibility that urban gardens can aid migration. However, monarchs continued southwest more consistently after moving through connected chains aligned southwest than after leaving the smallest isolated gardens, so the later study places a condition on how effectively gardens serve this role.
- Step 3
Select the precise synthesis
The response must preserve the proposal without overstating the findings or separating the effects of connectivity and alignment. Therefore, the answer is C: “The later study supported the idea that urban milkweed can function as a migratory stepping stone while qualifying it: connected gardens aligned with the route promoted continued travel more consistently than small, isolated gardens did.”