Question 62·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Mobile wallets and contact-free payment platforms have grown so quickly that paper money now feels like an antique. Because digital transactions are faster, cleaner, and easier to track, physical cash should be fully phased out within the next five years. A nation that relies exclusively on electronic payments will save on printing costs and reduce street crime associated with large amounts of cash.
Text 2
Digital payments do offer convenience, but the decision to eliminate cash should be approached cautiously. Millions of people—particularly seniors, small-business owners, and residents of rural areas—still depend on cash for daily transactions. Sudden removal of bills and coins could push these individuals out of the marketplace before they have reliable access to broadband or smartphones. A more sensible course would be to maintain cash for the foreseeable future while investing in infrastructure that makes digital options accessible to everyone.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the highlighted claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, first underline the specific claim or sentence in the first text that the question targets. Then, in the second text, quickly summarize the author’s stance in your own words (agree, disagree, partially agree) and note why. Before looking at the choices, predict in general how the second author would respond (for example, “would agree but on a slower timeline” or “would disagree because it harms a certain group”). Finally, choose the option that both (1) clearly refers to the same specific part of the original claim (such as the five-year timeline) and (2) accurately matches the second text’s reasons and tone, while eliminating any answers that exaggerate, reverse, or ignore what the second text actually says.
Hints
Locate the exact claim being challenged
Reread the bolded sentence in Text 1. What specific action and timeline does the author propose about physical cash?
Clarify Text 2’s attitude toward eliminating cash
Does Text 2 completely oppose digital payments, fully support rapid elimination of cash, or take a more cautious, middle position? Look at the examples of who still uses cash.
Connect Text 2’s concern to the five-year timeline
Think about what would happen to the groups mentioned in Text 2 if cash disappeared within five years. Would the author of Text 2 support that schedule, want to speed it up, or slow it down?
Eliminate extreme positions
Rule out any choices that make Text 2 sound like it wants to ban digital payments completely or rush to eliminate cash, since Text 2 recognizes benefits of digital payments but urges caution.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the highlighted claim in Text 1
Focus on the bolded sentence in Text 1: “Because digital transactions are faster, cleaner, and easier to track, physical cash should be fully phased out within the next five years.”
Text 1 is making two main points:
- Digital payments have advantages (faster, cleaner, easier to track).
- Therefore, physical cash should be totally eliminated on a quick timeline: within five years.
Summarize Text 2’s main position
Now look at what Text 2 says about eliminating cash:
- It admits digital payments offer convenience.
- But it says the decision to eliminate cash should be approached cautiously.
- It notes millions of people—seniors, small‑business owners, rural residents—still depend on cash.
- It warns that suddenly removing cash could push these people out of the marketplace before they have access to needed technology.
- It recommends keeping cash for the foreseeable future and improving digital access first.
So Text 2 is not against digital payments, but it is against eliminating cash quickly because of the impact on certain groups.
Infer how Text 2 would react to Text 1’s specific claim
The highlighted claim calls for fully phasing out cash within five years.
Given Text 2’s concerns, ask:
- Would Text 2 agree with eliminating cash on a short, fixed timeline? No, it warns that sudden removal harms people who depend on cash.
- Would Text 2 likely say that such a quick phase‑out is unfair to those groups and that cash should last longer than that? Yes, that matches its point about millions who still rely on cash and its recommendation to keep cash "for the foreseeable future."
Match that reasoning to the answer choices
Now compare each answer choice to what you just inferred:
- One choice should say that getting rid of cash on the proposed five‑year schedule would unfairly hurt groups who rely on cash and that the phase‑out period should be extended (keeping cash around longer).
The only option that does this is:
“By arguing that completely abandoning physical cash in five years would unfairly burden groups that currently rely on it and therefore the phase-out timeline should be extended.”
This directly reflects Text 2’s concerns and recommendation, so it is the correct answer.