Question 97·Easy·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Historians frequently overlook local history exhibits curated by small community museums, preferring sweeping narratives that promise national significance. Within this already neglected category, projects focused on immigrant neighborhoods are dismissed most often, as if their stories were too narrow to matter. This disregard persists even when such exhibits are carefully researched and thoughtfully presented.
Text 2
In 2019, the Riverbend Cultural Center created Market Street Voices, an exhibit built around oral histories from the city’s Vietnamese and Somali shopkeepers. The recorded interviews, labels, and photographs were woven together with care, drawing large crowds of residents. Yet despite its success with visitors, it received almost no attention from university historians in the state.
Based on the two texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely regard the situation presented in the bolded sentence in Text 2?
For cross-text connection questions, first summarize each text’s key point in 1–2 simple phrases (e.g., Text 1: historians ignore local immigrant exhibits; Text 2: historians ignore this specific local immigrant exhibit). Then ask how the author of one text would feel about a situation in the other—look for whether it matches a pattern they already described. Eliminate answer choices that introduce new reasons or claims not supported by the first text (such as comments about methods, popularity, or values the author never mentioned), and choose the option that both captures the right attitude (surprised, unsurprised, approving, critical) and uses the same reasoning given in the original passage.
Hints
Locate the key contrast in Text 2
In Text 2, focus on the contrast introduced by the word "Yet" in the bolded sentence. What is surprising to the museum (success with visitors) versus what happens with historians?
Identify Text 1’s main complaint about historians
Look back at Text 1 and underline what it says historians frequently do and which kinds of exhibits they ignore most often. Pay attention to the phrases about local history and immigrant neighborhoods.
Check how Text 1 treats careful research and popularity
Does Text 1 say that good research or popular exhibits usually do get historians’ attention, or that they are ignored even then? Use this to decide whether the situation in Text 2 would surprise the author of Text 1.
Match the pattern, not new claims
Choose the option that simply restates the pattern described in Text 1, rather than introducing new ideas (for example, about crowd size or what counts as scholarly methods) that Text 1 never mentions.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand what happens in the bolded sentence (Text 2)
Look closely at the bolded sentence in Text 2:
Yet despite its success with visitors, it received almost no attention from university historians in the state.
Key points:
- The exhibit is successful with the public ("drawing large crowds" earlier).
- It is carefully created (oral histories, labels, photos "woven together with care").
- University historians basically ignore it.
So the situation is: a well-made, popular local exhibit about immigrant shopkeepers is ignored by academic historians.
Summarize the main idea and attitude in Text 1
Now review what Text 1 says about historians:
- "Historians frequently overlook local history exhibits curated by small community museums" → They often ignore local exhibits.
- They prefer "sweeping narratives that promise national significance" → They like broad national stories, not small local ones.
- "Within this already neglected category, projects focused on immigrant neighborhoods are dismissed most often" → Exhibits about immigrant neighborhoods are especially ignored.
- "This disregard persists even when such exhibits are carefully researched and thoughtfully presented" → Even when the work is careful and high quality, historians still disregard it.
The author is critical of academic historians and describes this ignoring behavior as a common, ongoing pattern.
Connect Text 1’s pattern to Text 2’s specific example
Compare the pattern in Text 1 to the situation in Text 2:
- Text 2’s exhibit is at a local cultural center (a community museum–type setting).
- It focuses on immigrant communities (Vietnamese and Somali shopkeepers).
- It is carefully made and popular with visitors.
- Still, university historians ignore it.
This is exactly the kind of case Text 1 describes: a carefully researched local exhibit about immigrant neighborhoods that is still disregarded by academic historians.
So the author of Text 1 would see the bolded situation as fitting their criticism perfectly, not as something surprising or out of character for historians.
Match this understanding to the best answer choice
Now evaluate the answer choices against what Text 1 actually says:
- The response must show that the author of Text 1 would see this as in line with a familiar pattern, not as surprising, justified by poor methods, or caused by crowd size.
- It also should reflect the specific reason Text 1 gives: historians favor broad national narratives and often ignore local immigrant-neighborhood exhibits, even when they are carefully done.
The only option that both (1) treats the situation as predictable and (2) correctly explains it using Text 1’s reasoning is:
D) As unsurprising, because academic historians tend to favor broad national narratives and often ignore local exhibits about immigrant neighborhoods.