Question

Passage A
The Classic Maya collapse, which occurred over the course of the 9th century CE, is best understood through the lens of environmental determinism and ecological overshoot. In recent decades, paleoclimatological records—specifically data extracted from lake sediment cores and stalagmites in the Yucatán Peninsula—have revealed a series of severe, multi-decadal droughts that precisely track the chronological timeline of urban abandonment. However, climate alone does not fully explain the collapse; rather, the extreme drought acted as the final catalyst that pushed an already deeply strained system over the precipice. By the late Classic period, the Maya had arguably reached the absolute carrying capacity of their fragile tropical environment. Extensive deforestation, conducted to clear land for agriculture and to harvest wood for the massive quantities of quicklime plaster used in their monumental architecture, had not only degraded soil quality but also inadvertently exacerbated local drying trends by reducing evapotranspiration. The tragedy of the Maya was that their brilliant adaptations for managing a challenging rainforest environment ultimately allowed their population to grow so large that they became hyper-dependent on uninterrupted rainfall. When the seasonal rains ultimately failed, the rigid, elite-dominated sociopolitical structure could not effectively pivot. The legitimacy of Maya kings relied heavily on their perceived ability to ensure agricultural fertility through complex rituals. When crops failed repeatedly, rulers lost their divine mandate, leading to a catastrophic breakdown of social order and the depopulation of major urban centers.

Passage B
While it is increasingly popular to point to the weather as the primary culprit for the Classic Maya collapse, attributing the fall of a complex civilization primarily to climate oversimplifies the archaeological record. A closer reading of Maya hieroglyphic texts, alongside physical evidence of rapidly constructed defensive fortifications, suggests that the fatal blow was largely self-inflicted through endemic, escalating warfare. In the centuries preceding the collapse, the fundamental nature of Maya conflict shifted drastically—from highly ritualized skirmishes aimed at capturing high-status hostages, to devastating wars of territorial conquest. This political fragmentation and relentless, violent competition drained crucial resources and manpower. It is demonstrably true that this volatile period coincided with environmental perturbations, and there is little doubt that diminished agricultural yields inflamed existing geopolitical tensions among rival city-states. Moreover, the historically dense populations of the era meant there was virtually no margin for error regarding food security. Yet, the inability to manage these cascading stresses was fundamentally a political failure. This failure was rooted in an inflexible elite class that obstinately prioritized monumental construction and inter-polity warfare over practical infrastructural adaptation, even as their resource base dwindled. Rather than viewing the collapse as a simple story of ecological suicide, we must recognize it as a geopolitical implosion fueled by a competitive arms race for prestige.

Despite their differing primary emphases, the authors share several foundational assumptions about the conditions that led to the Classic Maya collapse. Which assertion from Passage B correctly corresponds to each assertion from Passage A to demonstrate a point of mutual agreement between the two authors?