Text 1
Sidebells wintergreen (Orthilia secunda) plants are native to Alaska, where harsh conditions have historically impeded potential invasive species. As the boreal climate has warmed in recent decades, however, Siberian peashrub (Caragana arborescens) plants have established themselves in Alaska. Previous research conducted in non-boreal ecosystems has documented warming-induced increases in summer temperatures benefiting invasive species more than native species.
Text 2
At a site near Fairbanks, Alaska, Christa Mulder and Katie Spellman tracked O. secunda and C. arborescens, along with other native and invasive species, over several years. They observed that although average summer temperatures were substantially higher in some years of the study than in others, neither O. secunda nor C. arborescens showed any significant variation in summer growth patterns from year to year.
Which choice best describes the relationship between the two texts?
Explanation
Context: Text 1 presents previous research conducted in non-boreal ecosystems showing that warming-induced increases in summer temperatures benefit invasive species more than native species. It implies this pattern might apply to Alaska's boreal ecosystem (where invasive Siberian peashrub has recently established). Text 2 presents Mulder and Spellman's actual Alaska field study tracking the native O. secunda and invasive C. arborescens. They observed that though both responded to warming, the native species responded more strongly — contradicting the non-boreal pattern Text 1 describes.
Answer: D) Text 2 presents a finding that casts doubt on the generalizability of the research discussed in Text 1.
Why? Text 1 presents non-boreal research suggesting warming helps invasives more than natives. Text 2's boreal Alaska study found the opposite: the native species responded more strongly to warming than the invasive did. This Alaska finding suggests the non-boreal research can't simply be generalized to all ecosystems — casting doubt on its broader applicability.
Traps:
- A) "Text 2 describes a methodology that helps researchers avoid a problem encountered in the research discussed in Text 1" → about methodology; Text 2 presents field observations, not a methodological improvement over Text 1's research
- B) "Text 2 explains a study that suggests an alternative explanation for the trends observed in the research discussed in Text 1" → Text 2 doesn't explain the non-boreal findings differently; it finds the opposite pattern in a different ecosystem
- C) "Text 2 discusses an observation that challenges the validity of the findings in Text 1's referenced research" → Text 2 doesn't invalidate the non-boreal studies; it shows those findings don't generalize to all ecosystems (doubt about generalizability, not validity)