DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-Medium
DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-Medium
DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-Medium is part of Craft and Structure : This section evaluates skills in understanding advanced academic vocabulary words from the context they are used in, analyzing an author’s rhetorical (persuasive writing) techniques and purpose, and synthesizing key ideas by making connections between multiple related texts on a topic.
Weightage : 20%
Subtopic: Cross-Text Connections
Question
Text 1
Microbes are tiny organisms in the soil, water, and air all around us. They thrive even in very harsh conditions. Thatʼs why Noah Fierer and colleagues were surprised when soil samples they collected from an extremely cold, dry area in Antarctica didnʼt seem to contain any life. The finding doesnʼt prove that there are no microbes in that area, but the team says it does suggest that the environment severely restricts microbesʼ survival.
Text 2
Microbes are found in virtually every environment on Earth. So itʼs unlikely they would be completely absent from Fiererʼs teamʼs study site, no matter how extreme the environment is. There were probably so few organisms in the samples that current technology couldnʼt detect them. But since a spoonful of typical soil elsewhere might contain billions of microbes, the presence of so few in the Antarctic soil samples would show how challenging the conditions are.
Based on the texts, Fiererʼs team and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement about microbes?
A. Most microbes are better able to survive in environments with extremely dry conditions than in environments with harsh temperatures.
B. A much higher number of microbes would probably be found if another sample of soil were taken from the Antarctic study site.
C. Microbes are likely difficult to detect in the soil at the Antarctic study site because they tend to be smaller than microbes found in typical soil elsewhere.
D. Most microbes are probably unable to withstand the soil conditions at the Antarctic study site.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans. D
Correct Answer: D
Rationale
Choice D is the best answer because it presents a statement about microbes with which Fierer’s team (Text 1) and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree. Text 1 states that microbes usually thrive in very harsh
conditions, and so Fierer’s team was surprised when samples collected from an extremely cold and dry area of Antarctica didn’t appear to contain any life. Fierer’s team says that though this doesn’t conclusively prove
there are no microbes in the area, it suggests that microbes would have a notably difcult time surviving in the environment. The author of Text 2 says it’s unlikely that there would be no microbes at all in the Antarctic
study site from which Fierer’s team retrieved soil samples and that there may have been hard-to-detect microbes in the samples. However, the presence of only a few microbes in the Antarctic samples rather than
the billions found in a typical soil sample (which would presumably be much easier to detect) would illustrate conditions in the Antarctic soil that make it difcult for microbes to thrive. Since Fierer’s team says that the seeming absence of microbes in the Antarctic samples suggests an unusually harsh environment and the author of Text 2 says that even if there are a few undetectable microbes in the samples, the relatively tiny
number of microbes would also suggest an unusually harsh environment, then Fierer’s team and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree that most microbes are unable to withstand the soil conditions at the Antarctic study site. seeming absence of microbes in the Antarctic samples suggests an unusually harsh environment and the author of Text 2 says that even if there are a few undetectable microbes in the samples, the relatively tiny number of microbes would also suggest an unusually harsh environment, then Fierer’s team and the author of Text 2 would most likely agree that most microbes are unable to withstand the soil conditions at the Antarctic study site.
Choice A is incorrect. The samples taken by Fierer’s team were from an area of Antarctica that is described in part as extremely dry, and these samples didn’t appear to have any life. Therefore, even though these samples also came from an extremely cold area, Fierer’s team wouldn’t argue based on the evidence available that microbes were better able to survive in dry conditions than in areas with harsh temperatures. Moreover, the author of Text 2 says that microbes are found in virtually every environment on Earth but doesn’t compare dry environments and harsh environments. Choice B is incorrect. Nothing in Text 1 indicates that another
collection of samples from the Antarctic study site might yield different results from the samples already taken by Fierer’s team. The author of Text 2 does state that microbes are found in virtually every environment
on Earth and suggests that new technology may be better able to detect so few microbes in a soil sample, but the author of Text 2 concludes that the unusual absence of microbes in the Antarctic samples is evidence of
the harsh Antarctic environment. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the author of Text 2 thinks that another sample drawn from that same harsh environment would yield a much higher number of microbes.
Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 does speculate that there may have been so few microbes in the Antarctic samples that current technology couldn’t detect them, but the author doesn’t speculate that this is
due to the size of the microbes. Moreover, nothing that Fierer’s team says suggests that they are speculating that their samples might have microbes that are smaller than microbes in typical soil samples.
Question
Text 1
The idea that time moves in only one direction is instinctively understood, yet it puzzles physicists. According to the second law of thermodynamics, at a macroscopic level some processes of heat transfer are irreversible due to the production of entropy—after a transfer we cannot rewind time and place molecules back exactly where they were before, just as we cannot unbreak dropped eggs. But laws of physics at a microscopic or quantum level hold that those processes should be reversible.
Text 2
In 2015, physicists Tiago Batalhão et al. performed an experiment in which they confirmed the irreversibility of thermodynamic processes at a quantum level, producing entropy by applying a rapidly oscillating magnetic field to a system of carbon-13 atoms in liquid chloroform. But the experiment “does not pinpoint … what causes [irreversibility] at the microscopic level,” coauthor Mauro Paternostro said.
Based on the texts, what would the author of Text 1 most likely say about the experiment described in Text 2?
A. It would suggest an interesting direction for future research were it not the case that two of the physicists who conducted the experiment disagree on the significance of its findings.
B. It provides empirical evidence that the current understanding of an aspect of physics at a microscopic level must be incomplete.
C. It is consistent with the current understanding of physics at a microscopic level but not at a macroscopic level.
D. It supports a claim about an isolated system of atoms in a laboratory, but that claim should not be extrapolated to a general claim about the universe
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans. B
Correct Answer: B
Rationale
Choice B is the best answer. Author 1 describes the puzzle that physicists still can’t solve: at a microscopic level, the “laws of physics” suggest that we should be able to reverse processes that are not reversible at a macroscopic level (and, maybe, turn back time!). The experiment conrmed that those processes are not reversible even on the microscopic level, but it didn’t explain why. This supports Author 1’s point that physicists still don’t fully understand how things work at a microscopic level—maybe the laws need to be revised.
Choice A is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Text 2 does name two of the physicists involved in the experiment, but it never suggests that they disagree on anything. Choice C is incorrect. This is the opposite of what the experiment suggests. The experiment conrmed that the macroscopic-level law (“these things can’t be reversed—like time”) was still true on the microscopic level—meaning it supports the current understanding of physics at a macroscopic level. Choice D is incorrect. We can’t infer that the author of Text 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Neither text makes this distinction between laboratory ndings and the way the universe works in general.