Text 1A team led by Bernardo Strassburg has found that rewilding farmland (returning the land to its natural state) could...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
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 world's 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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 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 world's 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 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." |
|
Main Point: Text 1 presents Strassburg's rewilding research as an unqualified environmental victory, while Text 2 views it as promising but requiring careful consideration of food security implications.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? The difference in how the two authors view or approach Strassburg's study
What type of answer do we need? A comparison of the authors' attitudes, perspectives, or focuses regarding the research
Any limiting keywords? "difference" - we need contrasting approaches, not similarities
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- From our analysis, we can see that the authors have distinctly different approaches to the same research
- Text 1's author presents the findings with clear enthusiasm and optimism, using positive language like "remarkably low," providing impressive statistics, and concluding it's a "clear win"
- Text 2's author takes a more cautious stance - while acknowledging the findings are "encouraging," they immediately raise concerns about practical implications (food supply) and suggest additional requirements (higher-yield farming policies)
- The key elements the correct answer must have:
- Text 1 author shows optimism/enthusiasm about the research
- Text 2 author shows caution/concern about practical implications
- This represents a clear difference in how they approach the same study
- So the right answer should capture that Text 1 is optimistic while Text 2 is cautious about the study's findings
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.
- This perfectly captures the contrast we identified in our analysis
- Text 2 does approach with "some caution" - using "While" to qualify praise and raising food supply concerns
- Text 1 is indeed "optimistic about the reported potential environmental benefits" - calling it a "clear win"
- The choice accurately reflects both authors' attitudes toward the same study
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.
- Text 2 never claims the 15% percentage is "too low" for meaningful results
- Text 2's concern is about food supply implications, not about the percentage being insufficient
- What trap this represents: Students might confuse raising concerns about consequences with disagreeing about the effectiveness of the proposed percentage
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.
- Neither text discusses timeline or when results might be "achievable in the near future"
- Both texts focus on the research findings themselves, not implementation timelines
- This choice introduces concepts not present in either passage
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.
- Both authors mention both carbon emissions and biodiversity effects
- Text 1 explicitly mentions both ("preserve biodiversity and offset carbon emissions")
- Text 2 refers to "potential benefits" generally, encompassing both aspects mentioned in Text 1
- The difference isn't about focus areas but about attitudes toward the findings