SAT OwlQuestion bank / Cross-Text Connections
Text 1: Conservation biologist Arjun Mehta argues that efforts to save endangered species should prioritize keystone species, those whose effects on their ecosystems are far larger than their numbers would suggest. Protecting a keystone species such as the sea otter, he notes, indirectly protects many other species that depend on the habitat it maintains.
Text 2: Identifying keystone species is harder than it sounds. A species' influence often depends on local conditions; the same predator may reshape one ecosystem and have little effect on another a few hundred kilometers away. Ecologist Ingrid Nygaard argues that conservation plans built around keystone species should rest on studies of each particular ecosystem rather than on a species' reputation elsewhere.
Based on the texts, how would Nygaard most likely respond to Mehta's argument?
She would reject the idea that any species can have effects out of proportion to its numbers.
She would caution that a species' keystone role in one ecosystem does not guarantee the same role in another, so prioritizing it requires local evidence.
She would argue that sea otters should not be protected because their influence varies from place to place.
She would agree that a species' keystone status can be determined reliably from its effects in any single ecosystem.
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B
Nygaard does not reject the keystone idea; she accepts that some species reshape ecosystems. Her concern is that this influence varies by location, so planners need local studies before treating a species as a keystone. Choice B captures this qualified response.
Choice A overstates her position; Text 2 says a predator may "reshape one ecosystem," which accepts that keystone effects exist.
Got it wrong? On SAT Owl, Owl looks at the answer you chose and explains the exact mistake, then gives you similar questions until it sticks. Get your predicted SAT score free.