Question

text 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. rewilding a mere 15% of the worlds current farmland would prevent 60% 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.
text 2
while strassburgs teams findings certainly offer encouraging insight into the potential benefits of rewilding, its 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 strassburgs teams study?
choose 1 answer:
a the author of text 2 approaches the studys 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 strassburgs 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 rewildings 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 strassburgs team are achievable in the near future, whereas the author of text 1 argues that they likely arent.

Explanation:

Text 1 highlights the positive aspects of rewilding (preserving biodiversity, offsetting carbon emissions) with an optimistic tone. Text 2, while acknowledging the potential benefits, brings up a concern (impact on global food supplies) which shows a more cautious approach.

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.