Question 24·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Publishers have recently released a wave of richly annotated editions of classic novels. These volumes embed explanatory notes beside the text, illuminating archaic terms, historical references, and allusions that a modern reader might otherwise miss. Supporters maintain that such editions democratize literature: by lowering the barrier to comprehension, they invite students and general readers alike to engage confidently with works that might have seemed forbiddingly remote.
Text 2
Some literary educators question the merit of highly annotated classics. They argue that abundant footnotes and sidebars can crowd the page, interrupting the narrative flow and discouraging readers from forming their own interpretive connections. In their view, a novel’s power lies partly in the productive uncertainty that arises when a reader must infer meaning; exhaustive notes can pre-empt that discovery process and, paradoxically, make the reading experience feel more laborious.
Which choice best describes the relationship between the two texts?
For cross-text connection questions, first quickly summarize each text in your own words (one short sentence each: who is speaking, and what is their main opinion?). Then decide whether the second text mostly supports, qualifies, or challenges the first. Pay close attention to tone words—like "supporters maintain" versus "question the merit"—because they signal agreement or disagreement. Finally, match that overall relationship to the answer choice, and eliminate options that describe support or extension when the second text is clearly critical, or that mention features (like historical background) that never appear in the passage.
Hints
Identify Text 1’s stance
Ask yourself: Does Text 1 seem mostly positive, mostly negative, or mixed about richly annotated editions of classic novels?
Identify Text 2’s stance
Look for opinion words in Text 2 (such as "question the merit" or descriptions of problems). Do these sentences show approval, disapproval, or neutrality toward highly annotated classics?
Compare support vs. challenge
Think about whether Text 2 is mainly adding reasons to agree with Text 1, suggesting improvements to the idea, or arguing that there are serious downsides to what Text 1 promotes.
Eliminate mismatched relationships
Check each answer choice: does Text 2 give background, extend a solution, or provide more support—or does it do something else? Cross out any choice that does not match how Text 2 actually responds to Text 1.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand Text 1’s main point
Text 1 describes richly annotated editions of classic novels in a positive way. It says they explain difficult words, historical references, and allusions, and argues that this "democratizes" literature by lowering the barrier to understanding so more people can read confidently.
Understand Text 2’s main point
Text 2 presents the views of educators who are skeptical about "highly annotated" classics. It says that many notes can crowd the page, break the story’s flow, stop readers from making their own interpretations, and make reading feel more difficult and tiring.
Compare the attitudes of the two texts
Text 1 is in favor of heavily annotated editions, seeing them as helpful and inviting. Text 2 is critical of that same practice, listing several negative effects and suggesting that too many notes can hurt the reading experience. So the texts are not in agreement; the second text challenges the positive view in the first.
Match this relationship to the answer choices
Because Text 2 questions whether the annotated approach actually works as positively as Text 1 claims, the best description of their relationship is: Text 2 casts doubt on the effectiveness of the approach endorsed in Text 1.