Question

sai #1 reading & writing - part 2 text 1 materials scientists joanna mckittrick and jae - young jung compared the skulls of woodpeckers and chickens, and they found that woodpeckers have unique adaptations to protect them from brain injury: unique skeletal composition, reduced brain fluid, and flexible tongue bones. mckittrick and jung believe their research could help develop better protective headgear to prevent sports concussions in humans. text 2 the q - collar is a concussion - prevention device, designed to mimic a woodpecker adaptation where the bird uses its neck muscles to compress its jugular vein, creating a \tighter fit\ around the brain within the skull. researcher james smoliga, however, says the birds adaptations cannot be replicated so simply. the physics of woodpecker drumming is complicated and different from that of sports concussions, so a woodpecker - mimicking collar is more pseudoscience than innovation. based on the texts, how would james smoliga (text 2) most likely respond to mckittrick and jungs findings (text 1)? a by conceding that mckittrick and jungs findings would likely lead to successful designs in concussion - prevention devices b by acknowledging the validity of their results, but questioning the results applicability in preventing concussions in humans c by challenging the idea that reduced brain fluid is actually an adaptation that helps protect woodpeckers from brain injury d by dismissing their results and emphasizing that they cannot have any application in designing protective headgear for humans

Explanation:

Text 2 shows James Smoliga acknowledges the woodpecker - based research by McKittick and Jung but doubts its direct applicability to human concussion - prevention as the physics of woodpecker drumming is complex and different from sports concussions.

Answer:

B. By acknowledging the validity of their results, but questioning the results' applicability in preventing concussions in humans