Question 158·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Some historians argue that the earliest long-distance Pacific voyages were guided exclusively by memorized star paths. In this view, swells, winds, and animal behavior were too variable to be dependable, so navigators trained primarily in reading the night sky; the star compass alone provided a stable, consistent framework for travel between islands.
Text 2
Interviews with master navigators and records of traditional training suggest that stellar knowledge was central but not solitary. Navigators routinely cross-checked star bearings with the direction and rhythm of ocean swells, the dusk and dawn movements of seabirds, and the distinctive cloud formations that can gather above low coral atolls. When overcast skies obscured stars, these additional cues became primary. Thus, wayfinding relied on a coordinated set of signals rather than any single source.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the claim in Text 1 that Pacific navigators relied exclusively on stars?
For cross-text connection questions, first summarize each text’s main point in a short phrase (e.g., “Text 1: only stars,” “Text 2: stars plus other cues”). Then decide how Text 2 relates to Text 1: does it agree, disagree, or partly agree but qualify or add information? Finally, eliminate answer choices that add new ideas not in the texts or that go to extremes (like “only” or “solely”) that don’t match what is actually said, and choose the one that best captures the exact relationship between the two texts.
Hints
Clarify Text 1’s position
Underline the words in Text 1 that describe how much navigators supposedly relied on stars (look for terms like “exclusively” and mentions of the star compass). What is Text 1 saying about other cues like swells and animals?
Clarify Text 2’s position
In Text 2, find the sentence with the phrase “central but not solitary.” What does that tell you about the role of stars, and what other types of information do navigators use?
Compare the two views directly
Ask yourself: Does Text 2 completely agree with Text 1, completely disagree, or partly agree but say something is missing? Then choose the option that matches that relationship most accurately.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s main claim
Focus on the key wording in Text 1: it says voyages were guided “exclusively by memorized star paths” and that “the star compass alone provided a stable, consistent framework.” This means Text 1 claims navigators relied only on stars and that other cues (swells, winds, animals) were not dependable.
Identify Text 2’s view of how navigation worked
Text 2 says “stellar knowledge was central but not solitary” and that navigators “routinely cross-checked star bearings” with swells, seabirds, and cloud formations. It also says that when stars were obscured, other cues became primary, and that wayfinding relied on “a coordinated set of signals rather than any single source.” So Text 2:
- Still treats stars as central/important
- But insists other cues were also systematic and used together with stars.
Decide how Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s claim
Text 1 overstates things by saying navigators relied exclusively on stars and that the star compass alone was the framework. Text 2 would partially agree (stars are central) but would object to the word “exclusively” and to ignoring the other cues it describes as part of a coordinated set. So Text 2 would say Text 1’s claim is too limited and leaves out important parts of how navigation really worked.
Match that characterization to the answer choice
We need the choice that says: stars were indeed central, but the claim is incomplete because it ignores other systematic cues used alongside stars. That is exactly answer C) By acknowledging stars as central while arguing that the claim overlooks other systematic cues navigators used in concert.