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.
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?
Explanation
Context: Text 1 presents Strassburg's team's finding that rewilding just 15% of farmland could prevent 60% of extinctions and absorb vast CO₂—calling it "a clear win." Text 2 acknowledges the encouraging findings but cautions that rewilding policies must also address food supply by improving yields on remaining farmland.
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.
Why? Text 1 uses "clear win" and presents only benefits. Text 2 says "it's important to consider potential effects on global food supplies" and says policies "must also address" higher-yield farming. Text 1 is enthusiastic; Text 2 is cautious.
Traps:
- B) Text 2 claims the percentage is too low → Text 2 doesn't dispute Strassburg's numbers; it raises a different concern (food supply)
- C) Text 2 believes results are achievable soon, Text 1 says they aren't → Text 1 is optimistic, not pessimistic; Text 2 raises implementation concerns, not timeline doubts
- D) Text 2 focuses on carbon emissions, Text 1 on biodiversity → the opposite: Text 1 discusses both biodiversity and carbon; Text 2 focuses on food supply implications