SAT Cross Text Connection Drill

Based on the texts, what would Adams (Text 2) say in response to the quotation in Text 1? Text 1: In 1604, Galileo enforced a limitation on potential universes by arguing that “feasible entities are those that do not entail a contradiction.” This declaration influenced how researchers and reviewers have since pondered about substitute conceivable realms or alternate realities, including those that contradict the conditions of our own world. The most prevalent perspective in conceivable-worlds concept links possibility with rational laws. Text 2: Author Douglas Adams has recently demonstrated that the idea of conceivable worlds is sufficiently flexible in the context of literature. For him, readers of literary narratives do not regard logical discrepancies as a reason to abandon an attempt to draw conclusions and, instead, embrace a combination of logic and existential contradiction: “If contradictions are confined to specific areas—to what [might be called] the holes in a Swiss cheese—then it remains possible to make stable inferences for the other areas and to construct a world.”

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the researchers’ perspective in Text 1 on the behavior of the chimps removing puzzle feeders from their peers? Text 1: A team of researchers observed a group of chimpanzees in a sanctuary, where they introduced a new type of puzzle feeder to assess problem-solving abilities. While most chimps used the feeder as intended, a few individuals were seen removing the feeders from others in their group. Researchers noted this behavior and suggested it might be a sign of competitiveness, as the chimpanzees attempt to monopolize food. Text 2: When animals engage in removing items from their peers, it can be tempting to attribute this behavior to a deliberate act of interference or disruption. However, it's equally plausible that they are simply intrigued by the object's novelty and are exploring it out of curiosity, leading to its removal. This ambiguity complicates our interpretation of their actions.