How does the author of Text 1 treat competing theories about mycoprotein's environmental impact?

• A. They are well-supported by robust data.
• B. They are flawed, and the author presents evidence of benefits.
• C. They are ignored as irrelevant.
• D. They are all equally valid.

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that the author weighs different theories about mycoprotein’s environmental footprint and shows why some ideas don’t hold up, and then lays out evidence that points to real benefits. The author treats competing theories as flawed by pointing out gaps, biases, or incomplete data in those views—things like relying on narrow datasets, making broad assumptions, or overlooking important parts of the lifecycle. Then the author brings in solid evidence to show how mycoprotein can be environmentally advantageous, such as data from lifecycle assessments that highlight lower emissions or resource use compared with conventional animal protein. This approach makes the argument stronger by not taking opposing claims at face value and by grounding the claim of benefits in verifiable evidence. The other options don’t fit because the author doesn’t present competing theories as equally solid or ignore them; instead, they critique them and emphasize the benefits supported by data.