SAT Reading and Writing: Cross-Text Connections (Medium)

Master medium-difficulty paired passage questions by comparing viewpoints, synthesizing information across texts, and identifying relationships between two related passages

Domain: Craft and Structure Difficulty: Medium Frequency: 1-2 questions per test

By NUM8ERS Test Prep Team | Updated October 2025 | 29-minute read

Understanding Medium Cross-Text Connections Questions

What's Different at Medium Level: Medium Cross-Text Connections questions require you to analyze more nuanced relationships between two passages. Unlike easy questions where texts clearly agree or disagree, medium questions present passages with subtle similarities, partial agreements, or qualified perspectives. You must identify what specifically the authors would agree on, how one text responds to or builds upon another, or what evidence from one passage supports claims in the other.

At this level, the relationship between texts is more complex. You might encounter passages that agree on underlying principles but differ on applications, texts that complement each other by addressing different aspects of the same topic, or passages where one provides evidence that could support or challenge the other's claims. You must read carefully to identify the precise nature of the connection.

🎯 What Makes Medium Questions Harder

Challenge 1: Partial Agreement/Disagreement

Authors may agree on some points but disagree on others, requiring you to identify specific areas of commonality.

Example: Both texts agree climate change is real but differ on the best policy responses.

Challenge 2: Nuanced Perspectives

Authors express qualified views or acknowledge limitations, making the relationship between texts less straightforward.

Example: Text 1 says "while effective in some cases..." Text 2 focuses on those specific cases.

Challenge 3: Complementary Information

Texts may address different aspects of the same topic without directly agreeing or disagreeing.

Example: Text 1 discusses causes; Text 2 discusses effects—they complement rather than contradict.

Challenge 4: Evidence Application

You must identify how evidence or findings from one text could support, challenge, or qualify claims in the other.

Example: Text 1 presents a theory; Text 2 presents a study whose results relate to that theory.

📋 Common Question Formats

At the medium level, you'll encounter these question types:

"Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to [claim from Text 1]?"

Tests whether you understand how one author's perspective relates to specific points made by the other author.

"Based on the texts, what would both authors most likely agree about?"

Requires identifying areas of agreement even when texts emphasize different aspects or have different overall perspectives.

"Which finding from Text 2, if true, would most directly support/challenge the claim in Text 1?"

Tests your ability to understand how evidence or information from one passage relates to arguments in the other.

"The relationship between the texts is best described as..."

Asks you to characterize how the two texts relate to each other overall (complement, contradict, qualify, etc.).

Worked Example 1: Finding Agreement

Text 1

Traditional approaches to language preservation have focused primarily on documentation: recording native speakers, compiling dictionaries, and creating grammar guides. While such efforts are valuable, linguist Sarah Chen argues that without active speakers using the language in daily contexts, these materials become merely historical archives rather than living linguistic systems. True preservation, Chen suggests, requires creating environments where languages are transmitted naturally from generation to generation.

Text 2

The Maori Language Commission in New Zealand has demonstrated that comprehensive documentation of endangered languages serves crucial functions beyond immediate preservation. Their extensive archives of recordings and written materials have enabled the development of educational programs, mobile applications, and media content that support language revitalization efforts. These resources provide essential foundations for communities working to restore language use, even generations after active speaker populations have declined.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1 that documentation creates "merely historical archives"?

A) By arguing that documentation efforts waste resources that should be directed toward creating speaking environments.

B) By providing evidence that documented materials can serve as practical tools for revitalization efforts.

C) By agreeing that documentation alone is insufficient but suggesting it has no value for preservation.

D) By challenging the claim that natural transmission is necessary for language preservation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Step 1: Understand the Question

What the question asks: How would Text 2 respond to Text 1's specific claim about documentation?

Text 1's claim: Documentation without active speakers creates "merely historical archives"—implying documentation alone is insufficient.

What I need to find: Text 2's perspective on the value/role of documentation

Step 2: Summarize Text 1's Position

Text 1 main point: Documentation is "valuable" BUT not enough—needs active speakers and natural transmission for TRUE preservation. Documentation without use is just history, not living language.

Step 3: Identify Text 2's Perspective

Text 2's focus: Documentation serves "crucial functions BEYOND immediate preservation"

Archives enabled development of educational programs
Created mobile apps and media content
Provide "essential foundations" for revitalization
Can restore language use "even generations after" decline

Text 2's implicit response: Documentation isn't just historical archives—it's a practical tool that enables revitalization

Step 4: Evaluate Each Answer

Option A: Documentation wastes resources

❌ Opposite of Text 2's view. Text 2 emphasizes documentation's "crucial functions" and "essential foundations"—clearly values documentation highly. Says nothing about wasted resources.

Option B: Documented materials can serve as practical tools for revitalization

✅ Perfect response! This directly addresses Text 1's "merely historical archives" claim:
• Text 1 says documentation without active use = just historical
• Text 2 shows documentation leads to educational programs, apps, media
• These are PRACTICAL TOOLS that support revitalization (not just archives)
• Text 2 would respond: "Actually, documentation serves practical revitalization purposes, not merely historical ones"
This captures Text 2's counter-evidence to Text 1's characterization.

Option C: Documentation alone insufficient but has no value

❌ Contradicts Text 2. Text 2 explicitly states documentation serves "crucial functions" and provides "essential foundations"—clearly asserts value. Text 2 NEVER suggests documentation has "no value."

Option D: Challenges need for natural transmission

❌ Doesn't address the question. The question asks how Text 2 would respond to the "merely historical archives" claim about documentation, not about natural transmission. Text 2 doesn't challenge the value of natural transmission—it just emphasizes documentation's practical uses.

Correct Answer: B

💡 Key Lesson: For "how would Text 2 respond" questions, focus on the SPECIFIC claim being addressed. Text 1 claimed documentation creates "merely historical archives." Text 2's entire focus is showing documentation creates practical revitalization tools—a direct response to that characterization. The authors don't completely disagree (both acknowledge documentation's role), but Text 2 provides evidence that documentation is more than just historical—it's practical and essential for revitalization.

Worked Example 2: Identifying Common Ground

Text 1

Social media platforms have fundamentally altered how people form and maintain relationships. Research by sociologist Maria Torres suggests that online connections, while numerous, tend to be shallower than traditional in-person friendships. Her studies indicate that face-to-face interactions create stronger emotional bonds through nonverbal communication, shared physical experiences, and the sustained attention required by in-person conversation.

Text 2

Digital communication technologies offer unique advantages for relationship maintenance that in-person interaction cannot match. People separated by distance can stay connected daily through video calls and messaging. Research by psychologist David Kim shows that online platforms enable individuals to maintain larger social networks and reconnect with old friends who would otherwise drift away. These technologies haven't replaced in-person interaction but have expanded the possibilities for human connection.

Based on the texts, what would both Torres (Text 1) and Kim (Text 2) most likely agree about?

A) Face-to-face interactions create deeper emotional connections than online communication does.

B) Social media has changed the nature of human relationships in significant ways.

C) Online relationships should be avoided in favor of traditional in-person friendships.

D) The quality of relationships is more important than the quantity of social connections.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Step 1: Summarize Each Text's Main Point

Text 1 (Torres): Online connections are shallower than in-person friendships; face-to-face creates stronger bonds

Text 2 (Kim): Digital technologies offer unique advantages; enable larger networks and reconnections; haven't replaced in-person but expanded possibilities

Note: These seem to emphasize different things—Text 1 focuses on depth of online vs. in-person; Text 2 focuses on unique benefits of online. But they may share underlying assumptions.

Step 2: Find the Lowest Common Denominator

What both texts explicitly state:
• Text 1: Social media has "fundamentally altered" relationships
• Text 2: Technologies have "expanded the possibilities for human connection"

Both acknowledge that technology has CHANGED relationships, even though they emphasize different aspects of that change (Text 1: depth concerns; Text 2: expanded opportunities).

Step 3: Test Each Answer

Option A: Face-to-face creates deeper connections

❌ Only supported by Text 1. Torres explicitly argues this point. But Text 2 (Kim) doesn't address depth of connection—Kim focuses on unique advantages of digital communication without comparing depth. We can't assume Kim agrees about face-to-face being deeper.

Option B: Social media has changed relationships in significant ways

✅ Both texts support this!
• Text 1: social media "fundamentally altered" how people form/maintain relationships
• Text 2: technologies "expanded the possibilities for human connection" and enable things "in-person interaction cannot match"
Both researchers acknowledge social media has SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED relationships, even though they evaluate those changes differently (Text 1 sees trade-offs in depth; Text 2 sees expanded opportunities). This is the common ground.

Option C: Online relationships should be avoided

❌ Too extreme and not supported by either text. Text 1 says online connections are "shallower" but also calls them "valuable"—doesn't advocate avoiding them. Text 2 explicitly celebrates digital communication's advantages. Neither recommends avoidance.

Option D: Quality matters more than quantity

❌ Not addressed by both texts. Text 1 implies this by discussing depth, but Text 2 doesn't make this comparison—Kim discusses advantages of larger networks without suggesting quality/quantity trade-off. We can't assume both agree on this value judgment.

Correct Answer: B

💡 Key Lesson: For agreement questions, find the "lowest common denominator"—the most basic point both texts support even if they emphasize different things. Both texts clearly agree that social media has significantly changed relationships, even though Text 1 focuses on depth concerns while Text 2 focuses on expanded possibilities. Don't choose answers that only one text supports (A), that are too extreme (C), or that require assumptions not stated in both texts (D). The correct answer must be explicitly or implicitly supported by BOTH passages.

Quick Example

Text 1

Vertical farming—growing crops in stacked layers within controlled indoor environments—has been promoted as a solution to agricultural challenges. However, the high energy costs associated with artificial lighting and climate control make vertical farming economically viable only for high-value crops like herbs and specialty greens. For staple crops such as wheat and rice, traditional field agriculture remains far more cost-effective.

Text 2

Recent technological advances have dramatically reduced the costs of LED lighting and automated climate control systems. A 2024 study in Singapore found that vertical farms using these new technologies achieved profitability even when growing staple vegetables like lettuce and tomatoes at scale. As technology continues to improve, economists project that the range of crops suitable for vertical farming will expand significantly.

Which finding from Text 2, if true, would most directly challenge a claim in Text 1?

A) Vertical farms in Singapore successfully grew lettuce and tomatoes profitably.

B) LED lighting costs have decreased substantially in recent years.

C) Economists predict vertical farming will expand to more crop types.

D) Technological advances have improved automated climate control systems.

Quick Analysis:

Text 1's claim to challenge: "High energy costs make vertical farming viable only for high-value crops; staple crops remain more cost-effective in fields"

What would challenge this: Evidence that vertical farming CAN be economically viable for non-high-value crops

Evaluate each option:

A) ✓ DIRECTLY challenges claim—shows vertical farms achieved profitability with staple vegetables (not just "high-value crops")

B) ❌ Supports WHY challenge is possible but doesn't directly show viability for non-high-value crops

C) ❌ Prediction about future, not evidence of current viability

D) ❌ General improvement, doesn't directly address economic viability for staple crops

Answer: A

Text 1 claims vertical farming is viable "only for high-value crops." The Singapore study showing profitability with lettuce and tomatoes (staple vegetables, not high-value specialty crops) directly contradicts this "only" limitation. Options B and D explain contributing factors but don't directly challenge the economic viability claim. Option C is about future predictions, not current evidence.

Key Takeaways

Read the question first: Know what relationship you're looking for before reading the texts
Summarize each text: Identify the main point of each passage before comparing
Find the lowest common denominator: For agreement questions, identify basic shared assumptions
Focus on explicit statements: Don't infer connections not clearly supported by the texts
Distinguish emphasis from disagreement: Different focus doesn't mean contradiction
Look for qualified language: "Some," "often," "may" indicate nuanced positions
Consider partial agreement: Texts can agree on principles but differ on specifics
Eliminate extreme answers: Wrong answers often overstate the connection
Check both texts: Correct answer must be supported by BOTH passages
Stay within the texts: Don't bring outside knowledge or make unsupported inferences

Study Strategy & Resources

📚 Build Core Skills

Practice summarizing passages quickly
Learn to identify main points vs. details
Develop comparison and contrast skills
Master finding common ground
Study how to recognize partial agreement

🎯 Daily Practice

Complete 3-5 paired passage questions daily
Practice the 5-step comparison strategy
Time yourself: 90-120 seconds per question
Explain the relationship between texts
Use official College Board materials

💡 Develop Synthesis Skills

Read opinion pieces with opposing views
Practice identifying points of agreement
Compare how authors approach same topics
Identify where perspectives complement each other
Distinguish between emphasis and disagreement

📖 Related Skills

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

🎓 NUM8ERS Cross-Text Mastery Program

At NUM8ERS in Dubai, our SAT specialists have developed the "Dual-Lens Analysis System" specifically for medium-level Cross-Text Connections questions. We teach students to read paired passages as a conversation between two perspectives, training them to identify subtle agreements, complementary information, and nuanced relationships that go beyond simple agreement or disagreement. Our approach emphasizes that cross-text questions reward careful comparison—students who systematically analyze both what texts say and how they relate to each other consistently outperform those who rely on superficial similarities.

Our comprehensive training includes: Side-by-side passage comparison drills, lowest-common-denominator identification exercises, partial agreement recognition training, response prediction practice, evidence relationship analysis, and systematic elimination of "half-right" answers. NUM8ERS students typically improve their cross-text accuracy by 35-40 percentage points after completing our focused training. The key breakthrough comes when students learn to ask "What specifically do both texts support?" rather than "What do they generally talk about?"—transforming them from passive readers who notice topics into active analysts who identify precise connections, complementary information, and the exact nature of agreement or disagreement between perspectives.

SAT Reading and Writing: Cross-Text Connections (Medium)

Understanding Medium Cross-Text Connections Questions

🎯 What Makes Medium Questions Harder

Challenge 1: Partial Agreement/Disagreement

Challenge 2: Nuanced Perspectives

Challenge 3: Complementary Information

Challenge 4: Evidence Application

📋 Common Question Formats

Top Tips for Cross-Text Connections Questions

🎯 The 5-Step Comparison Strategy

Step 1: Read the Question First

Step 2: Read Text 1 and Summarize the Main Point

Step 3: Read Text 2 with Text 1 in Mind

Step 4: Identify the "Lowest Common Denominator"

Step 5: Eliminate Extreme or Partial Answers

⚠️ Critical Skills for Success

Worked Example 1: Finding Agreement

Worked Example 2: Identifying Common Ground

Quick Example

Key Takeaways

Study Strategy & Resources

📚 Build Core Skills

🎯 Daily Practice

💡 Develop Synthesis Skills

📖 Related Skills

🎓 NUM8ERS Cross-Text Mastery Program