Cross Text Connections Test- 1 - SAT MCQ

Let's start by summarizing each text in our own words.

Text 1: This passage presents the view of a group of "theorists" about ecological diversity. Specifically, the theorists claim that "historical diversity is a major driver of how diverse an ecological community eventually becomes." If we were to simplify and rephrase this claim, we might say that

More diversity early on means more diversity later.

Text 2: This passage presents the findings from a particular experiment. Scientists stocked a number of pools, giving some high species diversity and others low species diversity. After four years, they found ("contrary to their expectations") that the species diversity in all the pools to be the same. If we were to simplify and rephrase this finding, we might say that

Surprisingly, more diversity early on doesn't make a difference.

Now that we have brief summaries of each passage, we can see how those summaries relate to one another. Do they agree? Disagree?

In this case, our two texts are in disagreement. The claims of the theorists in Text 1 are not supported by the findings of the researchers in Text 2.

Let's take a look at the choices, and see which one matches the relationship we just described:

Choice D suggests that the theorists claim "holds true" in the researchers study. We found the exact opposite. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice B goes beyond what we learn about the researchers in Text 2. It suggests that they didn't like the theory in Text 1 even before they did their research. However, the text never tells us this; it simply reports on their experiment. We can eliminate this choice.

Choice A suggests that, despite their research findings, the scientists in Text 2 think that the theory in Text 1 is "largely correct". But the research findings directly oppose the theory, and it's never suggested in Text 2 that the researchers support the theory from Text 1. We can eliminate this choice.

Only choice C identifies the same disagreement that we identified in our summaries. While the theory from Text 1 sounds like it makes sense, the experiment in Text 2 showed a different result. Choice C is the answer.

Choice A. This is the best choice. Ishii and O'Mahony were trying to isolate the pure umami flavor, while Jünger was trying to recreate soy sauce, which has a mix of flavors that includes umami. Accordingly, the broths from Text 1 are not described as having any soy sauce in them—just "shiitake mushrooms and kombu seaweed". So they probably don't have as much of the dipeptides described in Text 2, which were found to be a key part of soy sauce's umami-ness and its saltiness.

Choice B. Neither text supports this. Neither text gets into the diets of people in the United States, nor the diets of people in Japan.

Choice C. Neither text supports this. Text 2 does talk about the molecular weights of chemical compounds, but there isn't enough information provided about molecular weights in Text 1 to make an inference about what the scientists in Text 1 would say.

Choice D. Neither text supports this. Text 1 briefly mentions that soy sauce is "made from fermented soybeans", but it never claims that fermentation is responsible for its flavor in any way. And Text 2 never mentions fermentation at all.

Choice A. We can't infer that this is how Author 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that scholars are dismissive of popular works in general. Instead, Text 1 says that scholars ignore food writing specifically, despite its popularity—and despite the fact that it can be historically significant and complex.

Choice B. This is the best choice. Text 1 states that literary scholars ignore regional cookbooks most of all, even when they have historical significance and are well written. So Author 1 wouldn't be surprised that scholars ignored Edna Lewis's cookbook.

Choice C. We can't infer that this is how Author 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never suggests that elements of other genres should be kept out of cookbooks.

Choice D. We can't infer that this is how Author 1 would regard the situation. Text 1 never discusses how food writing is or should be marketed.

Choice A. This isn't something that either text claims. Neither text mentions the "climate of the West African coast", so we have no evidence that either author would agree with this.

Choice B. This isn't something that either text claims. Cassava is the only crop discussed in the passages, so we have no basis to draw conclusions about what the authors might say about "several" crops.

Choice C. This isn't something that either text claims. The 1500s were when cassava was brought to West Africa, but neither text describes how cassava is cooked, nor do they make any claims about when cooking methods were developed.

Choice D. This is the best choice. Text 1 states that cassava's "rise to popularity was slow" in West Africa. Text 2 also describes cassava's "slow adoption into the diet of West Africans". While the two texts identify different causes for this slow adoption, both agree that cassava took a long time to catch on.

Choice A. This is the opposite of what the experiment suggests. The experiment confirmed that the macroscopic-level law ("these things can't be reversed—like time") was still true on the microscopic level—meaning it supports the current understanding of physics at a macroscopic level.

Choice B. This is the best choice. Author 1 describes the puzzle that physicists still can't solve: at a microscopic level, the "laws of physics" suggest that we should be able to reverse processes that are not reversible at a macroscopic level (and, maybe, turn back time!). The experiment confirmed that those processes are not reversible even on the microscopic level, but it didn't explain why. This supports Author 1's point that physicists still don't fully understand how things work at a microscopic level—maybe the laws need to be revised!

Choice C. We can't infer that Author 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Neither text makes this distinction between laboratory findings and the way the universe works in general.

Choice D. We can't infer that Author 1 would respond this way to the experiment. Text 2 does name two of the physicists involved in the experiment, but it never suggests that they disagree on anything.

Choice A. We can't infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj's hypothesis. Text 2 never discusses whether Wild 2 is representative of long-period comets in general. Rather, Text 2 presents Artemieva's argument that the Chicxulub impactor was an asteroid, not a long-term comet.

Choice B. This is the best choice. Siraj's hypothesis is that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-period comet. But Artemieva points to the iridium found in the crater and in "geological layers that were deposited worldwide after the impact" as evidence that it was actually an asteroid, not a long-period comet.

Choice C. We can't infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj's hypothesis. Siraj's hypothesis doesn't make this connection: rather, Siraj hypothesizes that the Chicxulub impactor was a long-term comet.

Choice D. We can't infer that this is how Artemieva would respond to Siraj's hypothesis. "Soil samples from sites distant from the Chicxulub crater" is too vague. Only soil samples from sites that are connected to the impact in some way are involved in either hypothesis.

Option A, because it's crucial to ensure that your final choice is in harmony with the central themes and explicit content of both texts, rather than forcing incorrect options to seem viable or disregarding key details.

Option A is correct because it encapsulates the contradiction between Green and Park's initial expectations (based on the theory) and their actual findings.

Option A is correct because Text 2 describes research that, contrary to the researchers' expectations (which were based on the theory from Text 1), found minimal differences in current wealth between countries with different historical economic stabilities.

Option B is correct because Text 1 discusses a theory that emphasizes the influence of a country's historical economic stability on its current economic health, which isn't related to randomness (A) or solely leadership (C).