Question 103·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Many complaints about the “decline” of language confuse variation with error. What counts as good usage depends on audience and purpose: a lab report, a poem, and a text message rely on different conventions, none inherently superior. New forms that spread widely are not signs of decay but evidence that speakers are meeting communicative needs efficiently; such forms have patterns and constraints just like older ones. Rather than policing students’ vocabularies, educators should help them recognize which choices fit which settings and why.
Text 2
Slang and texting abbreviations are corroding students’ ability to write clearly. To safeguard precision, schools should prohibit these forms in classrooms and penalize their appearance in any student work. If we do not enforce a single standard everywhere, we risk losing language’s rigor and coherence.
Question
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the policy advocated in Text 2?
For cross-text questions asking how one author would respond to another, first summarize each text’s central claim in a short phrase (e.g., "multiple standards based on context" vs. "single strict standard"). Then, without looking at the answer choices, predict in your own words whether the first author would agree or disagree and why. Finally, scan the choices and eliminate those that: (1) contradict the first text’s clear position, (2) introduce new details or reasons not mentioned, or (3) oversimplify by ignoring key ideas like context or nuance. Choose the option that most closely matches your prediction using only information supported by the passages.
Hints
Start with Text 1’s main claim
Reread the first and last sentences of Text 1. What does the author say about how we should think about language variation, and what should educators do instead of "policing" vocabulary?
Contrast the two texts’ views on standards
Text 2 argues for "a single standard everywhere." Does Text 1 seem to support one uniform standard, or does it describe something different about how "good usage" works?
Think about the role of context
According to Text 1, how do audience and purpose affect what counts as appropriate language? How would that view affect the author’s opinion of a blanket classroom ban on certain forms?
Eliminate answers that add new claims
Look for choices that introduce ideas not mentioned in Text 1, like how often students use slang, or that reverse Text 1’s position by making it support strict prohibition or a single standard.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s main ideas
Focus on what the author of Text 1 believes about language:
- "Many complaints about the 'decline' of language confuse variation with error" → the author thinks variation is not automatically wrong.
- "What counts as good usage depends on audience and purpose" → there is no single, universal standard; it depends on context.
- New forms "are not signs of decay" and "have patterns and constraints" → new or slang-like forms are systematic and useful, not just sloppy.
- "Rather than policing students’ vocabularies, educators should help them recognize which choices fit which settings" → teachers should guide students in choosing the right style for the situation, not ban forms outright.
Identify Text 2’s main ideas
Now summarize Text 2:
- "Slang and texting abbreviations are corroding students’ ability to write clearly" → it sees slang as harmful.
- "Schools should prohibit these forms in classrooms and penalize their appearance in any student work" → it wants an across-the-board ban.
- "If we do not enforce a single standard everywhere" → it favors one uniform standard for all situations.
So Text 2 promotes strict prohibition and one standard of language in all contexts.
Predict how Text 1 would respond to Text 2’s policy
Compare the two views:
- Text 1: multiple valid conventions, depending on audience and purpose; new forms are systematic; teachers should help students match language to context instead of "policing" vocabulary.
- Text 2: slang/abbreviations are damaging; there should be a single standard; schools should ban and punish any use of these forms.
From this contrast, Text 1 would disagree with a blanket ban and the idea of one standard everywhere. Instead, the author of Text 1 would argue that clarity comes from using the appropriate variety for the situation, and that students should learn when and how to shift between styles (often called code-switching), rather than being forbidden to use certain forms at all.
Match your prediction to the answer choices
Now check each option against what we inferred about Text 1:
- Choice 1 says Text 1 would agree that only one standard ensures clarity and would support a ban. This is the opposite of Text 1, which rejects a single standard and opposes "policing" vocabularies.
- Choice 3 says Text 1 would accept language change in general but insist new usages never appear in formal settings. Text 1 never draws that hard line; it focuses on context and fitting choices to each setting.
- Choice 4 says the policy is unnecessary because students rarely use slang in school writing. Text 1 never mentions frequency; the disagreement is about principles, not how often slang appears.
- Choice 2 matches Text 1’s ideas that good usage depends on context and that newer forms can be systematic, so teachers should help students choose appropriately rather than impose a blanket ban.
Therefore, the correct answer is: By arguing that good usage depends on context and that slang is rule-governed, so schools should teach when it fits rather than ban it.