Learn how to analyze and draw insightful connections between two related texts, focusing on similarities or contrasts in perspectives, themes, and styles.
The "Cross-Text Connections" question introduced in the digital SAT challenges students' comprehensive analytical abilities, requiring them to draw insightful parallels between two thematically linked texts.
Answering these questions require a deep understanding that extends beyond the superficial content of the passages. Students need to identifying whether the passages are share similar or contrasting perspectives and evaluate how the themes of the two texts and the perspectives of the authors are connected.
Text 1:
Economic experts often debate the factors influencing national wealth accumulation. A prevailing theory posits that a country's historical economic stability significantly influences its current economic health: the economic trajectory of nations, according to this perspective, is profoundly shaped by their past financial conditions and policies.
Text 2:
In 2018, economists Green and Park conducted a study comparing the current wealth of countries that had experienced varying degrees of economic stability in the past century. They examined nations with histories of financial crises and those with more stable pasts, tracking their current economic statuses. Contrary to what Green and Park had hypothesized, their research found minimal differences in current wealth between the countries that had experienced economic instability and those that hadn't.
Based on the texts, how would Green and Park (Text 2) most likely describe the view of the theorists presented in Text 1?
A) It is generally accurate but needs some minor adjustments based on the study’s results.
B) It is an unconvincing theory that stands independently of the study’s findings.
C) It appears reasonable but is contradicted by the outcomes of the study.
D) It likely applies exclusively under certain circumstances outlined in the study.
First, absorb the content and main idea of each text separately. Recognize Text 1 introduces a theory about economic history influencing present conditions, while Text 2 describes a study that expected to confirm this theory but found unexpected results.
Summarize the main argument in the first text and justify why your summary accurately encapsulates the key points.
What is the main premise in Text 1?
Combine the information from both texts, noting the relationship between the two. Here, Text 2's study was designed around the theory presented in Text 1, and the results contradicted the economists' initial expectations based on that theory.
Considering both texts, describe in a sentence how Text 2 relates to the theory presented in Text 1. Justify your answer by explaining how the elements from both texts support your statement.
What relationship between the two texts is evident?
Before looking at the options, articulate how Green and Park might view the theory based on their findings. In this case, "They would find the theory questionable based on their study's results" would be a reasonable and concise pre-answer.
This predictive step allows you to critically think about what the answer should be without being prematurely influenced by the answer choices.
Critically evaluate each option against the pre-answer from the previous step. Dismiss choices that clearly don't align with your formulated answer.
Let's go through each of the choices:
Choice A: This suggests some concurrence with the theory, which contradicts the finding of "minimal differences" in Text 2.
Choice B: This choice implies Green and Park were skeptical from the start, which wasn't the case; they were surprised by their findings.
Choice C: This matches our pre-answer, indicating a discrepancy between expectation and result.
Choice D: Implies a more narrow applicability of the theory, whereas the study suggests a broader challenge to the theory's validity.
Option C aligns with the surprise encountered by Green and Park and acknowledges their initial expectation of the theory's accuracy, making it the most suitable choice.
Explain why your chosen answer is the best match, citing specific phrases or concepts from the texts that align with your choice. Justify how these elements corroborate your selection.
Why is option C ("It appears reasonable but is contradicted by the outcomes of the study.") the best match?
Reread the pertinent parts of the texts to ensure your choice is fully supported. Confirm that Green and Park’s findings were unexpected (thus they considered the theory reasonable initially) and that the results did indeed challenge the theory.
Revisit the texts and your chosen answer. Identify any new information that supports or contradicts your choice. Justify why this information impacts (or does not impact) the validity of your selection.
When double-checking, what should you focus on?
Always check information from one text against the information in the other. Misinterpreting one text can lead to the wrong conclusion about the relationship between the two.
Look for words that describe expectation versus outcome (e.g., "contrary to," "unexpected"), as they'll guide your understanding of the researchers' perspective.
Don't make assumptions beyond the given information. Your conclusion should be directly inferable from the texts.
Summarizing the relationship between the texts in your own words before looking at the options can pre-orient you towards the correct answer and reduce confusion.
The incorrect options might use wording from the texts but in ways that twist or misrepresent the content. Be vigilant about the context and true implications of the texts.
Now that you've mastered this question type, it's time to test your skills
Take a Free Digital SAT Practice Test