SAT Cross-Text Connections
Compare two short passages — how their authors agree, differ, or would respond.
How to score it
- Pin each author's position in one phrase before comparing.
- Calibrate the magnitude of disagreement — total opposition is rare; usually they overlap on something narrow.
- For “agree” questions, the common ground is often methodological (how to study it), not the conclusion itself.
Common traps
- Overstates the conflict — makes a partial disagreement total.
- Common ground that only one author actually holds.
- True of one text, but not the relationship being asked about.
The 3 question types, with real examples
Characterize one author's view of the other
“Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely describe the view presented in Text 1?”
Text 1 Literary critic Jonathan Wells claims that Emily Dickinson's frequent use of dashes in her poetry serves primarily as a visual disruption that mimics the fragmented nature of human consciousness. He argues that these punctuation marks force readers to pause and experience thought as a series of discrete moments rather than as a continuous flow. Text 2 Literary critic Patricia Huang agrees that Dickinson's dashes create pauses, but she contends they function more as musical notations, indicating where emphasis and breath should fall when the poems are read aloud. Huang suggests that viewing the dashes purely as representations of consciousness overlooks their practical role in guiding vocal performance.
Based on the texts, how would Huang most likely describe the view of the dashes presented in Text 1?
- AAs accurate in noting that dashes create pauses but limited in not recognizing their function as performance guides✓
- BAs wholly incorrect because dashes have nothing to do with consciousness
- CAs insightful in recognizing both the visual and musical dimensions of the dashes
- DAs neglecting the role of dashes in creating emphasis in written texts
Huang shares Wells's observation that dashes create pauses but differs in her interpretation of their primary function, seeing them as musical rather than purely cognitive.
Find common ground
“Based on the texts, the authors of both passages would most likely agree on which statement?”
Text 1 Historian Maria Kovacs argues that the Industrial Revolution's impact on urban mortality rates has been overstated. While factory conditions were undeniably harsh, her analysis of London parish records from 1800-1850 shows that mortality rates remained relatively stable. Kovacs attributes this stability to concurrent improvements in food distribution systems, which offset the negative health effects of industrial labor. Text 2 Economist James Whitmore contends that industrialization significantly worsened public health in nineteenth-century cities. His examination of wage data and housing costs in Manchester reveals that factory workers could afford only cramped, unsanitary lodgings. Whitmore concludes that industrial employment directly caused the cholera epidemics that devastated working-class neighborhoods throughout the 1830s and 1840s.
Based on the texts, the authors of both passages would most likely agree on which statement?
- AExamining historical records from specific cities provides valuable evidence for understanding industrialization's effects.✓
- BThe Industrial Revolution improved overall living conditions for urban workers despite some temporary setbacks.
- CFactory labor was the sole cause of increased mortality in nineteenth-century industrial cities.
- DFood distribution systems underwent the most significant changes during the Industrial Revolution.
Both Kovacs and Whitmore base their arguments on detailed examination of historical records from specific cities—Kovacs uses London parish records while Whitmore analyzes Manchester wage and housing data. This methodological commonality exists even though they reach different conclusions about industrialization's impact on health.
Hypothetical response
“How would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?”
Text 1 Philosopher Karl Popper argued that scientific theories must be falsifiable to be meaningful. A genuine scientific claim makes predictions that could be proven wrong through observation; if no conceivable evidence could refute a theory, it falls outside the realm of science. This criterion distinguishes science from pseudoscience and metaphysics. Text 2 While falsifiability remains influential, philosopher Thomas Kuhn noted that scientists rarely abandon theories simply because of contradictory evidence. During periods of 'normal science,' researchers work within established frameworks, treating anomalies as puzzles to solve rather than as refutations. Theories are replaced only when alternatives emerge that explain both old successes and new phenomena better. The history of science suggests that falsifiability alone cannot account for how scientific knowledge actually develops.
Based on the texts, how would Kuhn (Text 2) most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
- ABy questioning whether falsifiability accurately describes how scientists evaluate theories in practice✓
- BBy pointing out that the claim fails to account for the difference between normal science and periods of paradigm shift
- CBy agreeing that falsifiability defines science while observing that scientists do not always follow this ideal
- DBy rejecting it, as scientific theories are actually judged by their ability to solve puzzles rather than by potential refutation
Text 2 describes how scientists treat anomalies as puzzles and change theories based on alternatives that explain phenomena better, suggesting the actual process differs from falsification. Kuhn would likely question whether falsifiability captures scientific practice, given that 'scientists rarely abandon theories simply because of contradictory evidence.'
Want to try the hard ones? 25 hard Cross-Text Connections questions with full explanations — free, no account needed.
Drill Cross-Text Connections — free trial→