SAT Reading and Writing: Cross-Text Connections

These questions always follow this format:

Standard Question Stems:

• "Based on the texts, how would [Author of Text 2] most likely respond to the claim in Text 1?"
• "Which choice best describes a difference between the two texts?"
• "Both texts discuss [topic]. How would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the [claim] in Text 2?"
• "What do both texts indicate about [topic]?"

⚖️ Key Distinction:

Unlike single-text questions that ask "What does the passage say?", cross-text questions ask "How do these two passages relate to each other?" Your job is to identify the connection or contrast between the authors' perspectives.

Aspect	Single-Text Questions	Cross-Text Questions
Number of Texts	One passage	Two separate passages (Text 1 and Text 2)
Focus	Understanding one author's message	Comparing/contrasting two authors' viewpoints
Key Skill	Reading comprehension	Synthesis and relationship analysis
Time Required	45-60 seconds	90-120 seconds (more reading)

Step 1: Read the Question First

Before reading either text, look at the question. This tells you what relationship to look for. Are you comparing viewpoints? Finding agreements? Identifying disagreements?

Step 2: Read Both Texts and Summarize Each

Read Text 1 completely, then mentally summarize it in one sentence: "This author thinks X." Then do the same for Text 2: "This author thinks Y."

Pro Tip: Don't get bogged down in details. Focus on each author's main point or central claim. The details support the main point but aren't usually what the question tests.

Step 3: Identify the Relationship Between Texts

Now that you understand both authors' positions, determine how they relate:

• Do they disagree? Author 2 would likely challenge or refute Author 1's claim
• Do they agree on the problem but disagree on causes/solutions? Author 2 would acknowledge Author 1's concern but offer different reasoning
• Do they discuss different aspects? Neither directly addresses the other's point; they're complementary

Step 4: Predict the Answer, Then Match to Choices

Based on the relationship you identified, predict what the answer should say before looking at the choices. Then find the option that matches your prediction.

Trap 1: The "Only One Text" Answer

Wrong answers often describe something from only Text 1 or only Text 2, without addressing the relationship between them. The correct answer must connect BOTH texts.

Example: If the question asks how Author 2 would respond to Author 1, an answer that only describes Text 2's content (without relating it to Text 1) is wrong.

Trap 2: Confusing "Agreement" with "Similarity"

Just because both texts discuss the same topic doesn't mean the authors agree. Look at their actual positions or claims, not just the subject matter.

Trap 3: Overthinking or Reading Too Much Into It

These questions test straightforward relationships. If Text 1 says "X is good" and Text 2 says "X is bad," the relationship is simple disagreement. Don't look for complex, nuanced connections that aren't there.

Trap 4: Mixing Up Which Author Said What

With two texts, it's easy to confuse who argued what. As you read, mentally label each point: "Author 1 thinks this" or "Author 2 claims that." Some students even jot down "A1: [main point]" and "A2: [main point]."

Trap 5: The "Extreme Language" Distortion

Watch for answer choices that exaggerate the relationship. If Text 1 questions a theory and Text 2 supports it, the answer might say "Author 2 completely rejects Author 1's skepticism"—but neither text is that extreme. Stick to what's actually stated.

Text 1:

The widespread adoption of artificial intelligence in healthcare promises to revolutionize medical diagnosis. AI systems can analyze medical images with accuracy that matches or exceeds human radiologists, and they can process vast datasets to identify disease patterns that would be impossible for humans to detect. By reducing diagnostic errors and identifying diseases earlier, AI will significantly improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Text 2:

While AI shows promise in medical imaging analysis, concerns about its healthcare applications are substantial. AI systems can perpetuate biases present in their training data, potentially leading to misdiagnoses for underrepresented patient populations. Moreover, over-reliance on AI could erode physicians' diagnostic skills and clinical judgment. Rather than embracing AI uncritically, the medical community should proceed cautiously, maintaining human oversight and addressing algorithmic bias.

Question:

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claims in Text 1?

Step-by-Step Solution:

Correct Answer: B

💡 Key Lesson: The correct answer captures the core relationship—here, Text 2 challenging Text 1's optimism. Notice how Option B uses "overstated" to directly counter the enthusiastic language in Text 1. In disagreement patterns, look for answers that show one author questioning, challenging, or refuting the other's claims.

Text 1:

Coral reefs worldwide are experiencing devastating bleaching events due to rising ocean temperatures. When water becomes too warm, corals expel the symbiotic algae that give them color and nutrients, turning white and often dying. Scientists warn that if current warming trends continue, most coral reefs could disappear within decades.

Text 2:

Coral reef decline threatens not only marine biodiversity but also human communities. Over 500 million people depend on coral reefs for food security and economic livelihoods through fishing and tourism. The loss of coral reefs would devastate coastal economies and eliminate crucial storm protection that reefs provide to shorelines.

Question:

Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?

Quick Analysis:

Relationship pattern: Different aspects of the same problem. Text 1 focuses on causes (warming → bleaching). Text 2 focuses on impacts (human/economic consequences).

Lowest common denominator: What do BOTH texts say? Both indicate coral reefs are in trouble/declining and this is a serious problem.

Answer: B

This is the "lowest common denominator"—the broadest statement both authors would accept. Text 1 emphasizes the environmental/biological threat; Text 2 emphasizes the human/economic threat; but BOTH agree it's a serious problem. Options A, C, and D are mentioned in only ONE text, making them wrong for an agreement question.

Text 1:

Linguist Noam Chomsky revolutionized the study of language by proposing that humans possess an innate "universal grammar"—a built-in mental structure that enables children to learn any language rapidly without explicit instruction. This theory explains why children across all cultures follow similar developmental stages in language acquisition, regardless of the specific language they're learning.

Text 2:

While Chomsky's universal grammar provides a biological framework for understanding language acquisition, sociolinguistic research reveals that social factors significantly influence how children develop language skills. Children's language development is shaped by the quantity and quality of verbal interaction with caregivers, socioeconomic factors, and exposure to rich linguistic environments. This social dimension complements biological theories of language learning.

Question:

Which choice best describes the relationship between the two texts?

Answer: B

Explanation: This is Pattern 3 (Different Aspects). Text 1 discusses the biological/innate aspect of language learning. Text 2 explicitly says it "complements biological theories" by adding social factors. The key phrase "complements biological theories" signals they're not disagreeing but discussing different dimensions. Option A is wrong—Text 2 doesn't challenge the biological basis. Option C is wrong—Text 2 says social factors "complement," not "are more important than" biological ones. Option D is wrong—no contradiction is presented. The relationship is complementary, not oppositional.

Text 1:

Urban traffic congestion wastes billions of hours annually and contributes significantly to air pollution. To address this crisis, cities should invest heavily in expanding and improving public transportation systems. When convenient, reliable public transit is available, people voluntarily leave their cars at home, reducing traffic and emissions simultaneously.

Text 2:

Urban traffic congestion imposes enormous economic and environmental costs on society. However, expanding public transit often fails to reduce traffic because driving patterns are deeply ingrained. Instead, cities should implement congestion pricing—charging fees to drive in busy areas during peak hours. This directly incentivizes people to change their behavior by making driving expensive, as successful programs in London and Singapore demonstrate.

Question:

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the solution proposed in Text 1?

Answer: B

Explanation: This is Pattern 2 (Agreement on Problem, Different Solutions). Both acknowledge traffic congestion is a serious issue. Text 1 proposes public transit expansion. Text 2 explicitly says "expanding public transit often fails" and proposes congestion pricing "instead." The word "instead" signals Text 2 is offering an alternative solution, not a complementary one. Option B captures this—Text 2 thinks congestion pricing works better. Option A is tempting but wrong because Text 2 doesn't suggest combining approaches; it says "instead," indicating replacement. Option C is wrong—both agree congestion is serious. Option D is factually wrong—Text 1 doesn't cite city examples, and Text 2 only mentions congestion pricing successes, not public transit.

📚 Build Comparison Skills

• Read op-eds presenting opposing viewpoints
• Practice summarizing articles in one sentence
• Compare news coverage of same events from different sources
• Identify author positions before reading details
• Note signal words indicating relationships

🎯 Daily Practice

• Complete 3-4 cross-text questions daily
• Practice the 4-step strategy consistently
• Time yourself: 90-120 seconds per question
• Review why wrong answers don't fit relationship
• Use official College Board questions

💡 Pattern Recognition

• Learn to spot the three relationship types
• Practice identifying agreements vs. disagreements
• Recognize "lowest common denominator" statements
• Note transition words between texts
• Track which author said what

📖 Related Skills

• Text Structure and Purpose
• Inferences
• Central Ideas and Details
• Command of Evidence: Textual