The seed library
Separating what a study measured from what its author concluded, and holding that line for four questions.
Passage
A public library began lending vegetable seeds in 2019. Borrowers take a packet in spring and are asked, though not required, to return seed from the plants they grow. In the first year 340 packets went out and 41 came back.
By 2024 the return rate had risen to about one packet in three. The librarian who runs the scheme attributes the change to a short growing guide added to each packet in 2021, which explains how to let a plant go to seed and collect it.
No other change was made to the scheme, though the number of borrowers roughly doubled over the same period.
Answers in order, explanations withheld, and a report on where the chain broke.
- 26.1Data interpretationStandard
Which statement about the first year is supported by the text?
- AFewer than one packet in seven was returned.
- BAbout one packet in three was returned.
- CMost borrowers returned seed.
- DThe return rate was not recorded in the first year.
Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning
Fewer than one packet in seven was returned.
41 out of 340 is about 12 percent, which is under one in seven. One in three is the 2024 figure, not the first-year one, and the text gives both.
- 26.2Command of evidenceChallenge
Builds on: Question 1's figure, which establishes that the rise being explained is real and large.
Which choice most weakens the librarian's explanation for the change?
- ALibraries in the region that never added a growing guide saw returns rise by a similar amount.
- BThe growing guide was printed on recycled paper.
- CThe number of borrowers roughly doubled over the period.
- DSome borrowers took more than one packet in a year.
Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning
Libraries in the region that never added a growing guide saw returns rise by a similar amount.
A comparison group that improved without the guide shows the guide was not needed to produce the rise. Doubling borrowers is already in the text and does not by itself explain a rate change, and the other two choices are irrelevant to why returns rose.
- 26.3InferencesChallenge
Builds on: Question 2's identification of an alternative explanation, which is exactly why the causal claim cannot be read as established.
Which choice is best supported by the text as written?
- AThe rise in returns coincided with the guide, but the text does not establish that the guide caused it.
- BThe guide caused the rise in returns.
- CThe rise in returns was caused by the increase in borrowers.
- DReturning seed became a requirement of the scheme after 2021.
Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning
The rise in returns coincided with the guide, but the text does not establish that the guide caused it.
The text reports a change, a coinciding intervention, and one other thing that changed at the same time. That supports coincidence, not causation. The final choice contradicts the statement that returning is asked for but not required.
- 26.4Text structure and purposeStandard
Builds on: The causal gap identified in question 3 — this paragraph is where the text itself opens it.
The last paragraph mainly serves to
- Aintroduce a second change that complicates the explanation just given.
- Bconfirm that the growing guide was the only possible cause.
- Cexplain how seed is collected from a mature plant.
- Dpraise the librarian for running the scheme carefully.
Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning
introduce a second change that complicates the explanation just given.
It says no other change was made to the scheme, then immediately names something else that changed. The "though" is doing the work: it concedes and then qualifies.