Text 1
In separate studies, Stephen Meding and Robert J. Zasoski and Sanaa Wahbi and colleagues examined whether plants transfer nutrients to one another using a common mycorrhizal network (CMN)—a lattice of fungal strands in the soil. Meding and Zasoski excluded all pathways other than the CMN by using barriers to keep the plants’ root systems separate while allowing mycorrhizal strands through—a crucial step Wahbi and colleagues’ study did not take.
Text 2
Meding and Zasoski took the necessary precaution of separating the plants’ root systems (thereby excluding root-to-root transmission). However, any barrier used must allow the thread-like hyphae of a CMN to pass through, and this permeability would also allow liquids through. Thus, the researchers’ experimental design cannot ensure that any nutrient transfer observed can be attributed to a CMN and not to some other pathway.
Based on the texts, the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement?
Explanation
Context: Two research teams studied plant nutrient transfer via CMN. Text 1 praises Meding and Zasoski for using barriers to isolate CMN—a step Wahbi and colleagues skipped. Text 2 argues that even Meding and Zasoski's barriers were flawed because they also allowed liquids through.
Answer: A) The barriers used in Meding and Zasoski's study effectively excluded root-to-root transmission of nutrients.
Why? Text 1 says Meding and Zasoski used barriers "to keep the plants' root systems separate." Text 2 explicitly acknowledges that Meding and Zasoski "took the necessary precaution of separating the plants' root systems (thereby excluding root-to-root transmission)." Both agree on this.
Traps:
- B) Excluding root-to-root is sufficient to prove CMN transfer → Text 2 explicitly argues it's not sufficient, since liquids also pass through
- C) Wahbi's study found no convincing evidence → Text 1 says Wahbi skipped a crucial step; it doesn't characterize Wahbi's findings
- D) A barrier impervious to both roots and fungal strands is needed → Text 2 implies this, but Text 1 doesn't address it; they can't agree on something Text 1 doesn't discuss