How to Solve Cross-text Connections Questions | Reading and Writing for Digital SAT PDF Download

Introduction

Example Question:

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.
Ans: (c)
Correct Answer: Choice C is the best answer. Text 2 states that Green and Park’s research did not affirm the established theory, as there were "minimal differences" in wealth between historically stable and unstable countries, contrary to their expectations.

Distractor Explanations:

• Choice A is incorrect because Green and Park’s findings do not support the prevailing theory; rather, they challenge its core premise.
• Choice B is incorrect because Green and Park expected their data to confirm the theory, indicating they found it plausible before their research.
• Choice D is incorrect because their results oppose the general application of the theory, rather than suggesting its conditional relevance.

How to Solve Cross-text Connections Questions

1. Summarize the first passage: 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.
2. Synthesize Across Texts: 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.
3. Anticipate Before You Read the Options: 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.
4. Dissecting the Options: 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.
5. Confirming the Best Match: 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.
6. Double-checking your answer: 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.

Tips and Tricks

1. Cross-reference cautiously: 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.
2. Language is a clue: Look for words that describe expectation versus outcome (e.g., "contrary to," "unexpected"), as they'll guide your understanding of the researchers' perspective.
3. Stay within scope: Don't make assumptions beyond the given information. Your conclusion should be directly inferable from the texts.
4. Use your words: 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.
5. Options are more than words: 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.