Cross-Text Connections

Cross-Text Connections questions give you two short texts on the same topic, labeled Text 1 and Text 2. You are asked how the author of one would respond to the other ("Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to...?"), or what both authors would agree on. You are comparing viewpoints, not just facts.

• Usually, Text 1 presents a claim, finding, or recommendation, and Text 2 reacts to it.
• Text 2's reaction is rarely total rejection. Most often it qualifies the claim: "true, but incomplete," "true here, but not everywhere," or "another factor matters too."
• Answer from Text 2's point of view when asked how Text 2 would respond. Use only what Text 2 says or clearly implies.
• For "both would agree" questions, the answer must fit both texts. Anything only one text supports is wrong.
• Pin down exactly what in Text 1 is being responded to: the evidence, the conclusion, or the recommendation.

Rule: summarize each text in one sentence, then write one sentence connecting them before reading choices.

Text 1 City officials argue that planting street trees mainly benefits neighborhoods by making them more attractive to visitors.

Text 2 A team of urban researchers measured summer temperatures on streets with and without trees. Tree-lined streets were up to 4 degrees cooler, reducing residents' use of air conditioning.

Based on the texts, how would the researchers in Text 2 most likely respond to the officials' argument in Text 1?

A) By agreeing that attractiveness is the only benefit of street trees B) By suggesting that the argument overlooks another important benefit of street trees C) By arguing that street trees make neighborhoods less attractive D) By claiming that visitors prefer streets without trees

Connection: "Text 2 shows a cooling benefit Text 1 ignores."

1. A contradicts Text 2, which shows a second benefit.
2. C and D are not supported; Text 2 says nothing about attractiveness or visitors.
3. B: Text 2 adds a benefit without denying Text 1's point. Answer: B.

Text 1 In a six-month trial, employees at a software company who switched to a four-day workweek completed as many projects as before and reported less stress. Some economists conclude that a four-day week would benefit workplaces generally.

Text 2 Trials of shorter workweeks have mostly involved office jobs in which output depends on focused individual work. In settings such as hospitals or factories, where staff must cover fixed shifts, reducing hours can create staffing gaps that cancel out any gains.

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

A) By rejecting it, since the trial's results were probably exaggerated B) By cautioning that the conclusion may not apply to every type of workplace C) By agreeing that hospitals and factories should adopt a four-day week D) By arguing that office workers experience more stress than factory workers

1. Text 1: the trial succeeded, so economists generalize to "workplaces generally."
2. Text 2: shift-based workplaces are different.
3. A: Text 2 never questions the trial's results.
4. C: the opposite of Text 2's concern.
5. D: stress levels across jobs are never compared.
6. B captures Text 2's limit on scope. Answer: B.

• Too extreme. "Reject entirely" when Text 2 only qualifies. Match the strength of Text 2's language.
• Answering from Text 1's perspective. Re-read who is responding to whom.
• Agreeing on the topic, not the view. Both texts discussing gardens doesn't mean both hold the same opinion about them.
• Responding to the wrong part. Text 2 may accept Text 1's data but reject its conclusion. The answer must target the conclusion.
• Using details only one text mentions in a "both would agree" question.