Mastering Cross-Text Connection Questions on the SAT: A Three-Step Approach
When facing cross-text connection questions on the SAT, success lies in having a systematic approach. This guide introduces a powerful three-step strategy to tackle these questions effectively, along with crucial tips about answer choices, common traps, and language clues.
The Three-Step Approach
Step 1: Individual Text Summary
Before comparing texts, understand each one separately. For each text:
- Identify the main argument or claim.
- Note who's making the claim (author, researcher, etc.).
- Write a one-sentence summary.
- Circle key terms and findings.
Example:
- Text 1: Researchers believed sleep's memory role was primarily REM-based.
- Text 2: New research shows slow-wave sleep may be more important.
Step 2: Connect the Dots
Now analyze how the texts relate to each other:
- Are they contradicting?
- Is one building on the other?
- Do they partially agree?
- Is one providing new evidence about the other's claim?
Think: "Text 2 doesn't completely reject Text 1's REM sleep theory but suggests slow-wave sleep plays a bigger role."
Step 3: Match with Answer Choices
Before looking at answers, predict what you expect to see. Then evaluate each answer against your prediction.
Example Question:
Text 1: Initial studies of video gaming in the 1990s emphasized potential negative effects on children's development. Researchers pointed to violent content and repetitive gameplay as concerning factors, suggesting that extended gaming sessions could impair academic performance and social skills. These early studies recommended strict limits on children's gaming time and warned that gaming might interfere with the development of traditional problem-solving abilities and creativity.
Text 2: Modern neuroscience research reveals a more complex relationship between gaming and cognitive development. Dr. Lisa Chen's longitudinal studies show that certain types of video games can enhance spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and multitasking abilities. However, these benefits appear to depend heavily on the type of game played and the context of play, with some games offering minimal cognitive advantages while others provide significant learning opportunities.
How does Text 2's discussion of gaming's cognitive effects relate to the perspective presented in Text 1?
This demonstrates the 'mixing cause-effect' error type. While Text 2 discusses varying effects of gaming, it attributes these differences to game types and play context, not to personality differences. The answer introduces a factor not mentioned in either text.
This is the best choice. Text 2 presents evidence that gaming can have positive cognitive effects, contrasting with Text 1's concerns, while maintaining nuance by noting these benefits depend on game type and context. The answer captures both the correction of earlier views and the qualifications about when benefits occur.
This represents the 'scope extension' error type. Text 2 discusses cognitive benefits of 'certain types of video games' but never claims all games are designed for cognitive enhancement. This answer makes unsupported generalizations about game design intentions.
This shows the 'overstating/extreme claims' error type. While Text 2 presents a different view from Text 1, it doesn't suggest early research was completely wrong. The answer makes an extreme claim about misunderstanding that isn't supported by the texts.
Smart Answer Choice Strategies
Red Flags in Answer Choices
Watch out for answers that:
- Include information not mentioned in either text: Example: "The study also found impacts on cognitive development" (when neither text discussed this).
- Use extreme language: Example: "completely disproves all previous theories" or "absolutely confirms."
- Confuse who said what: Example: attributing Text 2's findings to Text 1's authors.
What Good Answers Look Like
Look for answers that:
- Show understanding of subtle relationships: Example: "suggests a modification to the existing theory" rather than "completely overturns previous beliefs."
- Stay within the texts' scope: Example: if texts discuss research findings, good answers won't speculate about future applications.
Avoiding Common Traps
- The "Complete Agreement" Trap: Just because texts aren't directly contradicting doesn't mean they completely agree. Look for partial agreements and nuanced differences.
- The "Outside Knowledge" Trap: Even if you're a sleep expert, stick to what's in the texts. Your knowledge might be accurate but irrelevant to the question.
- The "One-Text Focus" Trap: Don't choose an answer just because it accurately represents one text. The question is about the relationship between both texts.
Language Clues That Matter
Tone Indicators
Pay attention to how authors present their ideas:
- Supporting words: "confirms," "builds on," "supports."
- Challenging words: "disputes," "questions," "challenges."
- Qualifying words: "however," "although," "while."
Claim Strength Hierarchy
Notice the certainty level in statements:
- Strong claims: "proves," "demonstrates" (most certain).
- Moderate claims: "suggests," "indicates" (medium certainty).
- Weak claims: "might," "could" (least certain).
Example: If Text 2 says "suggests a possible link," an answer choice claiming it "definitively proves" would be incorrect.
Looking for more practice and learn more tips? Join the Study Plan.
Study Plan