Text 1 and Text 2: how would one author respond?

Lesson progressPractice problems 0/10
Difficulty
Advanced
Estimated time
35 minutes

What you’ll learn

  1. Recognize a Text 1 and Text 2 question and find who answers whom.
  2. Put each text's claim and the reason behind it in a few words.
  3. Name the stance one author would take toward the other: reject, qualify or extend.
  4. Choose between choices with the same stance by their reason and what they answer.
  5. Find the one point both authors would agree on.
  6. Say where two texts part when a question asks how they differ.

Prerequisites

You’re ready. No earlier lesson is needed.

Why this matters on the SAT

Decide what one author would say to the other

A cross-text question gives you two short texts on the same topic, labeled Text 1 and Text 2. Most ask how one author would answer the other: Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to …? About one Craft and Structure question in seven is a cross-text question, and the two authors usually disagree. The choices often all sound reasonable, so the question really asks: what would this author say to that claim, and for what reason?

SAT example

Text 1

Audiobooks, though entertaining, cannot substitute for reading print. Reading requires decoding and visually tracking words, a demanding mental process that deepens comprehension. Listening is passive; the narrator supplies tone and pacing, and without text on the page, your mind is more likely to drift. If you can’t point to a sentence and wrestle with it yourself, it isn’t real reading.

Text 2

Calling listening "passive" ignores how listeners work to construct meaning. Research suggests that, for many types of prose, careful listening yields comprehension similar to reading print, and apps let you pause, rewind, and take notes just as you might with a physical book. Narrators’ tone can clarify complex dialogue, not replace interpretation. Audiobooks provide another legitimate way to engage deeply with text, especially for people who benefit from nonvisual formats.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the author of Text 1’s claim that audiobooks are "not real reading"?

  1. A

    By arguing that careful listening is active and can lead to comprehension similar to print, so audiobooks count as real reading

  2. B

    By conceding that audiobooks can help only as brief summaries when a book feels too long to read in print

  3. C

    By claiming audiobooks should replace printed books in schools in every subject because they always raise students’ test scores

  4. D

    By arguing that audiobooks matter mainly because they let people multitask and follow a book without focusing closely

Solution to the example

Text 1: audiobooks aren't real reading, because listening is passive.

Text 2: careful listening is active and gives comprehension similar to reading print.

Stance: reject: audiobooks are another legitimate way to engage deeply with text.

Cross out: B concedes Text 1's point, which Text 2 never does, and C goes far past Text 2 with every subject and always.

Check: A rejects the claim for Text 2's own reason, so the answer is A.

D tempts most: it defends audiobooks, but as a way to follow a book without focusing closely, the passive listening Text 2 denies.

Read the question first: who answers whom

A question about how one author would respond names two things: the author who answers, and what they answer. Usually it's the author of Text 2 answering a claim in Text 1, but about one in five turns that around, and some name a person in a text instead of its author. Find both before you read the choices.

The question asksWho answersWhat they answer
how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1?the author of Text 2the claim in Text 1
how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the study described in Text 2?the author of Text 1the study in Text 2
how would Okafor (Text 2) most likely respond to Lee’s conclusion?Okafor, in Text 2Lee's conclusion, in Text 1
how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the underlined claim in Text 1?the author of Text 2the underlined claim only

The verb may be respond, say about or characterize; the task is the same. An underline here marks the target, not a function question: answer that part, which is often narrower than Text 1's whole claim.

Start with two steps. Find Text 1's claim and the reason behind it, in a few words. Then find what Text 2 shows: its own claim, its evidence and any limit it states. Try it on this pair of our own:

A pair to read

Text 1

A city painted its bike lanes bright green, and the next year crashes on those streets fell by a third. A planner concludes that the green paint made the lanes safer.

Text 2

That same year, crashes also fell by a third on streets the city never painted.

Note: Text 1’s claim
the green paint made the lanes safer
Note: Its reason
crashes fell by a third after the painting
Note: What Text 2 shows
crashes fell just as much without paint

Put that way, you can almost predict the response: something other than the paint cut the crashes. The choices are long, and each borrows words from both texts, so put each text in a few words before you read the choices.

When Text 1's author does the answering, the steps don't change. You still put both texts in a few words; then you ask what Text 1's author would say about Text 2, judging it by Text 1's own claim.

Check your understanding:

Who answers, and what do they answer? Based on the texts, how would Mendes (Text 1) most likely respond to the reviewers’ argument in Text 2?

In this question, Text 1's author does the answering: find the target, then put both texts in a few words.

Practice problems

Defining fairness

Practice problem

Text 1

A computer ethicist argues that talk of fairness in automated decision systems becomes empty without explicit definitions. They contend that organizations should adopt clear, provisional definitions (for example, committing to a particular standard such as equal false-positive rates across groups) and then revise them in public as evidence accumulates. While no single definition will fit every context, the ethicist warns that refusing to define fairness invites ad hoc judgment, enables selective enforcement, and weakens accountability. “We’ll know it when we see it,” they write, is not clarity but a way to delay responsibility.

Text 2

A regulatory board announces that because contexts vary widely, it will avoid fixing any formal definition of fairness for algorithms. Instead, for each deployment, a rotating panel will assess harms and benefits and issue a case-by-case determination. The board cautions that codifying a definition could ossify standards and stifle innovation; it prefers flexible expert judgment to any metric or formula.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the approach described in Text 2?

Answer choices

Name the stance: reject, qualify or extend

Next, before you read the choices, name the stance the responding author would take. Three stances answer nearly every question of this kind, and each comes from what the other text shows.

StanceThe answer saysWhat the other text shows
Rejectthe claim is wrong, or its evidence can't support itanother cause, evidence against the claim, or a reason its evidence can't show it
Qualifythe claim is true only in part, or only in some casesa limit: some cases, some conditions, other causes too
Extendthe claim goes furtherthe claim at work in a new case, or a step past it

Here's the planner's claim again, with Text 2 changed each time. The words that set the stance are bold.

Note: Text 1
A city painted its bike lanes green, and crashes on those streets fell by a third. A planner concludes that the green paint made the lanes safer.
Note: Reject
That same year, crashes also fell by a third on streets the city never painted.
Note: Qualify
Crashes fell on the painted streets with heavy traffic, but not on the quiet ones.
Note: Extend
When the city later painted its bus lanes green, crashes there fell too.

The first Text 2 points away from the paint, since something cut crashes everywhere. The second keeps the paint but only on busy streets. The third accepts the claim and carries it to a new case.

A qualify, true in part, is common, and choices are often written that way: they grant a point, then add a limit, which makes them sound fair. But on the SAT the answer rejects the claim about as often as it qualifies it, so don't assume “yes, but”: take the stance from what the other text shows.

Two more things about stances. Agreement is almost never the answer when one author responds to the other: a choice that just says the author would agree, or would praise the claim, is usually a trap. Agreement is what you look for when a question asks what both authors would agree on.

The other text often answers the evidence, not the conclusion: the study counted the wrong thing, missed another cause or covered too little time. If the response grants none of the claim, only the facts under it, that's a reject: the claim is unsupported. If it grants part of the claim, or grants it only under conditions, that's a qualify.

Check your understanding:

Which stance? Text 1: the green paint made the lanes safer. Text 2: crashes fell on the painted streets in summer, but rose in winter, when snow covered the paint.

Try the stances on these two questions: in each, find what Text 2 shows, then name the stance before you read the choices.

Practice problems

A novel in installments

Practice problem

Text 1

When the nineteenth-century novel Harbor Lights first appeared, it was published anonymously in a popular magazine in weekly installments. The magazine’s editor shortened scenes, removed some descriptive passages, and changed a few chapter endings to make them more suspenseful. Because those edited installments were the version most readers encountered, some literary historians argue that the novel’s early popularity owed more to the editor’s shaping hand than to the author’s original design.

Text 2

Recently discovered letters between Harbor Lights’s author and the magazine’s editor complicate that picture. In the letters, the author proposes several of the very cuts that later appeared in print and even rewrites an ending after the editor requests a “sharper cliffhanger.” The author also explains that publishing anonymously was her own choice, meant to keep attention on the story rather than on her identity.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 about the editor’s role in Harbor Lights’s early success?

Answer choices

Trees and summer smog

Practice problem

Text 1

Environmental engineer Lina Patel argues that cities can lessen the impact of heat waves by expanding urban tree cover. She notes that shaded streets and cooler surfaces can reduce the chemical reactions that form ground-level ozone, a key component of smog. Because planting programs are relatively inexpensive compared with rebuilding transportation infrastructure, Patel recommends that city leaders prioritize large-scale tree planting as a primary strategy for improving summertime air quality.

Text 2

Urban ecologist Marco Ruiz agrees that trees can cool neighborhoods, but he cautions that their effects on air quality vary widely. Some commonly planted species release compounds that can contribute to ozone formation, especially when traffic emissions are high. Ruiz therefore argues that tree planting should be targeted—choosing low-emitting species and placing them where they will not trap exhaust—and he maintains that reducing vehicle emissions remains essential for meaningfully cutting smog.

Based on the texts, how would Ruiz (Text 2) most likely respond to Patel’s recommendation (Text 1)?

Answer choices

The reason decides between choices with the same stance

Naming the stance often leaves two or three choices standing, because a question gives several choices the same stance. Then the reason decides: keep the choice whose reason is the other text's own, aimed at the part of the claim that text answers. A text can grant Text 1's facts and question only what they're taken to show, so check the target as well as the reason.

Here the planner's Text 2 reads: The crash counts cover one year, and crashes on these streets have swung by a third from year to year before. All three choices doubt the planner.

Note: Stance
reject: one year of data can't show the paint worked
Correct: Text 2’s reason
The drop may be a normal yearly swing, so one year can't show that the paint made the lanes safer.
Wrong: Not Text 2’s reason
The paint may fade, so the drop won't last.
Wrong: Wrong target
The crashes didn't really fall.

Only the first doubts the planner for Text 2's reason. The second gives a reason Text 2 never mentions, and the third aims at the wrong target: it denies the drop, which Text 2 doesn't dispute, since Text 2 questions only what the drop shows. The stance narrows the choices; the reason and the target pick the answer. A choice can even borrow the other text's words and still give the wrong reason, so check each reason against what that text actually says.

Then comes the last step, check both texts' support: every part of the choice must rest on what the texts say, and go no further. That includes strength. Some choices share a stance and differ only in how strongly they put it, such as may not show against disproves, or can shrink against disappears. Only the strength the texts support fits.

That makes one routine for every cross-text question, the one the worked examples and the mixed practice problems follow:

  1. Find Text 1's claim and the reason behind it, in a few words.
  2. Find what Text 2 shows: its own claim, its evidence and any limits it states.
  3. Name the stance the responding author would take: reject the claim, qualify it (true only in part or in some cases), extend it (take it further), or agree.
  4. Check both texts' support: the stance rests on what the texts say, and goes no further.

When the question has Text 1's author respond, step 3 names Text 1's stance toward Text 2. That answer is often an extend: Text 2 describes a case, and Text 1's author treats it as one more example of their own point.

Text 2 in this question is a general caution, so apply it to Text 1's study, then let the reason decide.

Practice problems

A fading r sound

Practice problem

Text 1

Linguist Simone Adeyemi recorded residents of Northport pronouncing words such as “harbor” and “cart.” Residents over age 55 generally omitted the r sound after a vowel, a long-standing feature of the local dialect, whereas secondary-school students usually pronounced it, even in casual conversation. Because Northport schools had emphasized pronouncing the r sound in speech instruction for two decades, Adeyemi concluded that school instruction is causing the traditional feature to disappear.

Text 2

Linguist Aaron Cho cautions that studies comparing older and younger speakers at one point in time cannot always distinguish a lasting sound change from age-related variation. Adolescents may adopt pronunciations associated with institutions such as schools but use more local forms later as their workplace and neighborhood ties grow. Cho argues that evidence collected from a community at multiple points in time can clarify whether young speakers retain a pronunciation as they age.

Based on the texts, how would Cho most likely respond to Adeyemi’s conclusion?

Answer choices

Both would agree: the one point both texts accept

About one cross-text question in five asks what both authors would most likely agree on, often about texts that disagree. Step 3 changes: instead of a stance, find the one point both texts accept, such as a fact both state or a conclusion both reach for different reasons. Here's the bike-lane pair with a new Text 2.

Note: Text 1
A city painted its bike lanes green, and crashes on those streets fell by a third. A planner concludes that the green paint made the lanes safer.
Note: Text 2
That same year, the city lowered the speed limit on those streets, and crashes fell just as much on unpainted streets with the new limit.
Correct: Both accept
Crashes on the painted streets fell after the painting.
Wrong: Text 1 only
The green paint made the lanes safer.
Wrong: Text 2 only
The lower speed limit cut the crashes.

The wrong choices are each one author's explanation. A choice whose point only one text supports is wrong, however true it sounds. Two more traps: a view a text reports only to argue against (some scholars think …), and a claim stronger than either text makes.

Check your understanding:

What would both accept? Text 1: a coach credits the team’s ten-game winning streak to a new training plan. Text 2: an analyst notes that two injured starters returned just as the streak began.

Find each text's main point, then the one they share. Watch for a view one text reports but doesn't hold.

Practice problems

Charts built by sailors

Practice problem

Text 1

Portolan charts—nautical maps that began circulating in the Mediterranean in the thirteenth century—are striking for their dense webs of directional lines and their careful attention to coastlines. Unlike many earlier European maps that emphasized religious or political ideas over geography, portolan charts appear to have been built from the on-the-water knowledge of pilots and merchants. Their repeated copying and correction suggest that mapmakers relied on accumulated travel experience rather than on abstract geographic theory.

Text 2

Many surviving portolan charts are lavish objects, decorated with coats of arms and elaborate compass roses. This decoration has led some scholars to treat the charts as luxury items made for display in wealthy homes. Yet even the most ornate examples often contain remarkably consistent coastal details, while areas that were rarely sailed show more errors and blank spaces. Such patterns imply that the charts’ geographic information was strengthened by mariners’ shared observations over time.

Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?

Answer choices

How the texts differ: name where they part

A few questions ask how Text 2 relates to Text 1, or for a difference between the two authors' views. Step 3 changes again: name the point where the texts part, such as what each covers, when, or how sure each is, before you read the choices. Then check each half of a choice against its own text, since a common trap swaps the two authors' views.

Rarer still, a question asks you to apply one text's model to the case in the other. Run the model on the new case one step at a time, the way an author who extends a claim carries it to a new case.

Before the choices, say where these two texts part.

Satellite temperature records

Practice problem

Text 1

Climate scientists often compare temperature records from weather stations with records from satellites. According to a recent overview, modern satellite instruments are carefully calibrated using measurements from ocean buoys and other reference tools. As a result, the overview concludes that satellite records provide a highly reliable way to track broad global temperature trends.

Text 2

Satellites are valuable for observing Earth, but some researchers note that satellite temperature records can be affected by issues such as changes in a satellite’s orbit and gradual sensor aging. For that reason, they argue that satellite data should be interpreted alongside surface-station measurements, which offer a longer continuous record in many regions.

Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view satellite temperature records?

Answer choices

Example: three choices push back, one for the right reason

In this question, three choices disagree with Text 1, and two of them reuse Text 2's own words. Only one keeps Text 2's reason.

Worked example

Text 1

Behavioral economist Lina Chen and colleagues analyzed enrollment data from six electric utilities that offered customers a choice between a standard electricity plan and a slightly more expensive plan sourced primarily from renewable energy. In three of the utilities, customers had to actively choose the renewable plan to receive it; in the other three, customers were automatically enrolled in the renewable plan but could opt out at any time. The researchers found that renewable-plan participation was substantially higher in the automatic-enrollment utilities. They conclude that most customers prefer renewable electricity and that low participation under active choice mainly reflects minor hassles in signing up.

Text 2

Sociologist Mara Iqbal cautions that automatic enrollment can raise participation without demonstrating any particular preference. People may remain in a default option because they overlook mailed notices, assume the default is recommended, or avoid making decisions they find confusing. Iqbal adds that default effects can vary with how prices and plan details are communicated, so the same design could produce different outcomes across utilities. She argues that enrollment patterns under automatic enrollment are useful for predicting what policies will accomplish but are a weak basis for claims about what most customers want.

Based on the texts, how would Iqbal (Text 2) most likely respond to the conclusion in Text 1 that most customers prefer renewable electricity?

  1. A

    She would argue that the conclusion is unsupported because higher participation under automatic enrollment could reflect inertia or confusion rather than a clear preference.

  2. B

    She would argue that because default effects depend on how prices and plan details are communicated, the enrollment data provide little guidance about what automatic-enrollment policies will accomplish.

  3. C

    She would agree that the higher participation under automatic enrollment shows what customers want, since remaining enrolled indicates an active endorsement of renewable electricity.

  4. D

    She would argue that because customers may assume the default is recommended, the results show customers’ trust in the utilities’ judgment rather than a default-driven change in behavior.

Step 1

Find Text 1’s claim and its basis

Text 1's evidence: renewable-plan participation was substantially higher in the automatic-enrollment utilities. From that, the researchers draw their claim: They conclude that most customers prefer renewable electricity. In a few words: more people stayed in the renewable plan when it was the default, so most people want it.

Step 2

Find what Text 2 shows

Iqbal grants the numbers and questions what they show: automatic enrollment can raise participation without demonstrating any particular preference. People stay in a default when they overlook mailed notices, assume the default is recommended, or avoid making decisions they find confusing. She ends with the line that sets her limit: enrollment patterns are useful for predicting what policies will accomplish, but weak evidence of what customers want.

Step 3

Name the stance, then cross out by the reason

Iqbal accepts Text 1's numbers but none of the conclusion drawn from them: a reject aimed at the evidence, since the conclusion is unsupported. Predict: the higher enrollment may only mean people stayed put, not that they want renewable power.

C agrees with Text 1, so it goes. B and D push back too, and both reuse Text 2's words. B takes the point that default effects can vary with how prices and plan details are communicated and concludes that the data say little about what policies will accomplish, the one use Iqbal says they're good for. D takes assume the default is recommended, one of the reasons people stay in a default, and calls the result trust rather than a default effect. Both reach conclusions Text 2 rejects, so B and D go.

Step 4

Check the last choice

A calls the conclusion unsupported because higher participation could reflect inertia or confusion rather than a clear preference. That's Text 2's reason in other words: overlooking notices is inertia, and avoiding confusing decisions is confusion. The answer is A.

Example: how far does the response go?

In this question, the four choices run from full support to full rejection. The stance narrows them, and the strength decides.

Worked example

Text 1

A research team trained a computer model on short voice recordings from people with and without Parkinson’s disease. In the team’s study, the model identified Parkinson’s with about 82% accuracy by detecting subtle speech patterns that the researchers argue reflect early neurological change. The team suggests that because smartphones can capture speech easily, the approach could become a convenient screening tool that prompts people to seek medical evaluation sooner.

Text 2

Impressive accuracy numbers in a controlled study do not guarantee that a tool will work well outside the laboratory. Speech varies with microphone quality, background noise, regional accent, fatigue, and respiratory illness, any of which can resemble disease-related changes and inflate error rates when a model is used broadly. Before voice-based screening is recommended, it should be tested across diverse real-world conditions and paired with careful clinical follow-up to reduce the harms of false alarms.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the researchers’ suggestion in Text 1 that the approach could become a convenient smartphone screening tool?

  1. A

    The controlled-study accuracy suggests the tool is ready for broad smartphone screening now, since real-world recording differences are unlikely to change the model’s performance much.

  2. B

    The tool could be recommended for broad smartphone screening now as long as users are told it is not a diagnosis and those flagged are advised to consult a clinician.

  3. C

    The findings are promising, but the tool should be tested across diverse real-world conditions and used only with careful clinical follow-up before it is recommended for broad smartphone screening.

  4. D

    Because everyday factors can mimic disease-related speech changes, voice-based smartphone screening is likely to create too many false alarms to be worth pursuing at all.

Step 1

Find Text 1’s claim and what Text 2 shows

Text 1: a model reached about 82% accuracy in one study, so the researchers suggest the approach could become a convenient screening tool. Text 2 answers the evidence: lab numbers do not guarantee that a tool will work well outside the laboratory, since accents, noise and illness can sound like disease.

Step 2

Name the stance and its strength

Text 2 doesn't call the idea wrong: it grants that the approach could become a screening tool, but only under conditions. Before voice-based screening is recommended, it should be tested across diverse real-world conditions and paired with careful clinical follow-up. A claim granted only under conditions is a qualify, and its strength is not yet: test first, then recommend.

Step 3

Place each choice on the scale

The choices run from full support to full rejection: A, ready now; B, now as long as users are warned; C, promising but tested first; D, not worth pursuing at all. A ignores Text 2's warning, so it goes. D goes further than Text 2, which never says to give up, so it goes too.

B is the most tempting, because it borrows Text 2's clinical follow-up. But it still says now, skipping the real-world testing that Text 2 puts first, so B goes.

Step 4

Check the last choice

C grants that the findings are promising, then puts both of Text 2's conditions before any recommendation: testing across diverse real-world conditions and careful clinical follow-up. Same stance, same strength. The answer is C.

Practice problems

These questions mix the stances and both kinds of question. On each one, start with who answers whom, and put both texts in a few words before you read the choices.

Paintings paired by design

Practice problem

Text 1

For the gallery exhibition Borrowed Horizons, curator Lena Park organizes landscape paintings by shared visual motifs rather than by date. A harbor painted in 1932 hangs beside a desert scene painted five decades later because both divide the canvas with the same broad horizontal bands. According to art historian Simone Ellis, such pairings reveal how later artists revised compositional approaches developed by their predecessors. The exhibition's sparse labels wisely allow these artistic relationships to emerge through close observation.

Text 2

The unexpected pairings in Borrowed Horizons make recurring designs easy to notice and create a rewarding visual experience. However, resemblance does not necessarily indicate influence: artists who never encountered one another's work may arrive independently at similar compositions. Because the exhibition's labels provide little information about letters, records, or other evidence connecting the artists, its historical argument is less convincing than its visual presentation.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1's interpretation of the exhibition?

Answer choices

One kind of street tree

Practice problem

Text 1

When a city pledges to plant 100,000 trees, the easiest way to meet the number is to order one fast-growing species by the truckload. That strategy, however, trades short-term efficiency for long-term fragility: a single insect or fungus can erase years of work. Urban foresters therefore recommend diversity targets—no more than 10% of any one species—and urge cities to coordinate with nurseries early so that varied stock is available.

Text 2

An audit of Riverton’s tree initiative found that 72% of the 15,000 street trees planted over five years were the same maple cultivar. When an introduced beetle began killing that cultivar, the city faced steep removal and replacement costs. The audit recommends diversifying future plantings but notes that doing so will require new inventory systems and training for maintenance crews, making an abrupt switch difficult.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the discussion in Text 2?

Answer choices

Autoplay and viewing time

Practice problem

Text 1

A video-streaming company introduced a new recommendation feature that automatically queues suggested shows at the end of each episode. In an internal report, the company compared user activity from the four weeks before the change with activity from the four weeks after. The report found that average viewing time per user increased by about 18% after the feature launched. The company concluded that the feature made it easier for viewers to find content they enjoy and argued that rolling it out to all users would substantially improve customer satisfaction.

Text 2

A media-research scholar warned that interpreting viewing-time metrics requires caution. The scholar noted that total viewing time can increase for reasons unrelated to enjoyment—for example, autoplay designs can discourage stopping even when viewers are indifferent, and longer sessions can reflect difficulty deciding what to watch. The scholar also pointed out that shifts in viewing time can coincide with other changes, such as the release of a highly anticipated series, seasonal patterns, or updates to how the platform records and reports usage. According to the scholar, viewing time can indicate engagement, but it cannot by itself demonstrate what caused the increase or whether viewers were actually more satisfied.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the company’s conclusion in Text 1 about customer satisfaction?

Answer choices

Source boxes in a web feature

Practice problem

Text 1

A columnist criticizes the investigative web feature CitySound: A History in Noise for its many clickable “source boxes” that appear beside the main narrative. The columnist argues that these boxes are less a helpful archive than a performance of rigor: several cite reports with mismatched dates or link to studies that don’t actually support the surrounding claims. Because the feature presents the boxes in the authoritative style of professional fact-checking while letting small inconsistencies slip through, the columnist concludes that the creators want readers to question the reliability of the narrator’s voice—and to see how easily the appearance of documentation can be manufactured.

Text 2

Another reviewer praises CitySound: A History in Noise for using the source boxes as a form of transparency. Rather than proving that the narrative is beyond dispute, the reviewer says, the boxes reveal where the story comes from: interviews that conflict, datasets with gaps, and quotations whose meanings shift with context. The reviewer argues that showing these uncertainties is the point, because it reminds readers that any public history is pieced together from incomplete records and invites them to watch that piecing-together in real time.

Based on the texts, both the columnist in Text 1 and the reviewer in Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement?

Answer choices

Finish the lesson

10 practice examples left

Finish the remaining questions correctly to complete this lesson.

Quick recap

  • Who answers whom: read the question first, and find the author who answers and what they answer.
  • Name the stance from the other text: reject, qualify or extend. Don't assume “yes, but”, and treat a choice that only agrees as a trap.
  • The reason decides between choices with the same stance: keep the other text's own reason, aimed at the right part of the claim.
  • Both would agree: the one point both texts accept, never one text's own claim or cause.
  • Every question: find Text 1's claim and what Text 2 shows, name the stance, then check that both texts support the choice and it goes no further.

Next lesson

How to find the main idea of a passage

Start Information and Ideas: find what a whole passage is mainly about.

Start next lesson

Practice

Practice SAT Reading & Writing

Put what you learned to work on real SAT Reading & Writing questions.

Cross-Text Connections question bank