Question

Passage A
In recent decades, the popularization of the "wood-wide web"—the vast subterranean network of mycorrhizal fungi connecting tree roots—has captured public imagination. The prevailing narrative suggests a forest is a cooperative, egalitarian society where older trees altruistically share nutrients with struggling saplings and warn neighbors of impending threats. However, this romanticized view fundamentally mischaracterizes the evolutionary imperatives driving these biological interactions. While it is undeniably true that carbon, water, and nutrients move between trees via fungal mycelium, attributing this to arboreal benevolence ignores the primary agent of this transfer: the fungus itself. Fungi are not passive conduits or altruistic facilitators; they are independent organisms acting to maximize their own evolutionary fitness. When a fungus transfers carbon from a sunlit, highly productive tree to a shaded sapling, it is expanding its own nutrient-gathering network, effectively hedging its bets to ensure a stable, long-term carbon supply. The apparent "cooperation" among trees is merely an incidental byproduct of fungal foraging strategies and source-sink resource gradients. To accurately understand forest ecology, we must strip away these appealing but misleading anthropomorphic metaphors. We must recognize the subterranean network as an arena of fierce competition and opportunistic symbiosis, driven by fungal self-interest, rather than a utopian arboreal collective.

Passage B
The concept of forests as interconnected, communicative entities relies heavily on the documented transfer of resources through common mycorrhizal networks (CMNs). Proponents of the "cooperative forest" model argue that these exchanges prove trees actively nurture their kin and coordinate defensive responses against pests or drought. Yet, a rigorous review of the empirical data reveals significant overextrapolation from limited studies. Most research demonstrating substantial resource transfer involves artificially controlled greenhouse experiments utilizing radioactive isotope tracing; evidence that such transfers occur in complex, mature forests at scales large enough to meaningfully affect tree survival and fitness remains surprisingly sparse. Furthermore, the observation that a chemical defense signal moves from an infested tree to a healthy neighboring tree through the soil network does not constitute intentional, active "communication." It is far more accurately described as a passive diffusion process along a concentration gradient, which neighboring trees may incidentally eavesdrop on for their own benefit. The popular narrative of cooperative intentionality imposes an unwarranted teleological framework on what are essentially simple biological mechanics. While CMNs undeniably play a crucial role in overall forest nutrient cycling, portraying them as mechanisms of active, tree-to-tree altruism vastly outpaces the current scientific evidence. The true ecological reality is one of complex, multi-directional exploitation, where both trees and fungi act strictly to secure their own survival within a competitive ecosystem.

Based on the two passages, which of the following statements represent central components of the primary argument shared by both authors? (Select all that apply.)