Question

cross - text connections: foundations
test 1
a team led by bernardo strassburg has found that rewilding farmland
returning the land to its natural state) could help preserve biodiversity and
offset carbon emissions. the amount of farmland that would need to be
restored, they found, is remarkably low, involving a mere 15% of the
world’s current farmland would prevent 40% of expected species
extinctions and help absorb nearly 299 gigatons of carbon dioxide - a clear
win in the fight against the biodiversity and climate crises.
test 2
while strassburg’s team’s findings certainly offer encouraging insight into
the potential benefits of rewilding, it’s important to consider potential
effects on global food supplies. the researchers suggest that to
compensate for the loss of food - producing land, remaining farmland would
need to produce even more food. thus, policies focused on rewilding
farmland must also address strategies for higher - yield farming.
which choice best describes a difference in how the author of text 1 and
the author of text 2 view strassburg’s team’s study?
choose 1 answer:
a the author of text 2 approaches the study’s findings
with some caution, whereas the author of text 1 is
optimistic about the reported potential environmental
benefits.
b the author of text 2 claims that the percentage of
farmland identified by strassburg’s team is too low for
rewilding to achieve meaningful results, whereas the
author of text 1 thinks the percentage is sufficient.
c the author of text 2 focuses on rewilding’s effect on
carbon emissions, whereas the author of text 1 focuses
on its effect on biodiversity.
d the author of text 2 believes that the results described
by strassburg’s team are achievable in the near future,
whereas the author of text 1 argues that they likely
aren’t.

Explanation:

• For Option A: Text 1 emphasizes the positive environmental benefits (preserve biodiversity, offset emissions) in an optimistic tone. Text 2 acknowledges the benefits but also considers potential issues (effect on food supplies), showing caution.
• For Option B: Text 2 does not claim the percentage is too low; it focuses on food supply impacts, so B is incorrect.
• For Option C: Text 1 mentions both biodiversity and carbon emissions benefits, and Text 2 focuses on food supplies, not carbon emissions, so C is incorrect.
• For Option D: Text 1 is optimistic about the results, and Text 2 does not discuss achievability in the near future, nor does Text 1 argue results aren't likely, so D is incorrect.

Answer:

A. The author of Text 2 approaches the study’s findings with some caution, whereas the author of Text 1 is optimistic about the reported potential environmental benefits.