How does the author of Text 1 likely respond to findings in Text 2 regarding mycoprotein?

• A. By rejecting mycoprotein as a viable option.
• B. By suggesting increasing meat consumption elsewhere.
• C. By emphasizing the need to substitute mycoprotein for chicken and pork if agricultural water consumption remains static.
• D. By concluding that water use cannot be changed.

Answer: (C)

Understanding how authors respond to new findings often means looking for what action would best address the issue raised by those findings. If Text 2 presents the idea that agricultural water use is a key constraint, the natural wrap-up in Text 1 would be to propose a shift toward a protein source that uses less water. The option that fits this is recommending substituting mycoprotein for chicken and pork when water use in agriculture remains static. This keeps protein options available without increasing overall water demand, aligning with using a feasible alternative to meet nutritional needs under a fixed water budget.

Other possibilities don’t fit as well because they either ignore the water issue (rejection of mycoprotein) or push more meat consumption (which would strain water resources), or declare that water use can’t be changed (which contradicts looking for a substitution to manage the constraint).