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.
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.
The author of Text 2 claims that the percentage of farmland identiﬁed by Strassburg’s team is too low for rewilding to
achieve meaningful results, whereas the author of Text 1 thinks the percentage is suﬃcient.
The author of Text 2 believes that the results described by Strassburg’s team are achievable in the near future, whereas
the author of Text 1 argues that they likely aren’t.
The author of Text 2 focuses on rewilding’s effect on carbon emissions, whereas the author of Text 1 focuses on its
Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 is extremely positive about Strassburg’s team’s ﬁndings, calling the potential results "a
clear win in the ﬁght against the biodiversity and climate crises." Text 2 is not as positive, arguing that while the ﬁndings
point to "potential beneﬁts," we also need to consider the "potential effects on global food supplies."
Choice B is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 does present the 15% number as enough to
achieve meaningful results, but that’s not what Text 2 takes issue with: rather, Text 2 argues that we need to consider the
effect that rewilding this much farmland would have on food supplies. Choice C is incorrect. This isn’t a difference between
the two views. Neither text mentions the timeline for achieving the results described by Strassburg’s team. Choice D is
incorrect. This isn’t a difference between the two views. Text 1 focuses on rewilding’s effects on both carbon emissions and