What the question looks like
You get two short texts, labeled Text 1 and Text 2, and one question about how they connect. The choices are long. If the question asks how an author would respond, most choices start with “By,” as in “By questioning the claim, since...” If it asks how an author would characterize something, they usually start with “As” and a word, as in “As overstated, because...”
| The question says | What you need |
|---|---|
| “Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined Something a passage says is true, which the rest of it backs up or limits. in Text 1?” | Text 2's answer to the underlined words |
| “...how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterize the finding described in Text 1?” | What Text 2 thinks of that finding |
| “...both authors would most likely agree with which statement?” | Something both would accept |
| “Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view X?” | Where they split on X |
| “...the authors would most likely disagree about the answer to which question?” | The question they'd answer differently |
| “Which choice best describes how Text 1 and Text 2 relate to each other?” | What Text 2 does to Text 1 |
On a difference question, “they disagree” isn't enough. The answer says what they disagree about.
Working through a question
Text 1
In the 1830s, wheat harvests in the Corlo Valley fell by half. Records from those years show far less rain than usual. Historian Ana Ruiz concludes that drought caused the crop failure.
Text 2
Rainfall did drop in the 1830s, and dry years hurt any crop. But in that same decade, most farmers in the valley switched to a new wheat that needs much more water than the old kind. Fields still sown with the old wheat lost little of their harvest.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
- A. By rejecting the claim, since dry weather did no harm to the valley's wheat
- B. By doubting the claim, since the rainfall records cover too few years to show a drought
- C. By arguing that drought alone cannot explain the failure, since fields of the old wheat kept most of their harvest
- D. By agreeing with the claim and adding that the drought pushed farmers to plant the new wheat
-
Read the question first. Text 2's author is answering the underlined claim, that drought caused the crop failure.
-
Read Text 1 and say its claim in a line. “Drought ruined the harvest.”
-
Read Text 2 and say how it answers. Text 2 never names Ruiz. When that happens, ask what both texts are explaining, here the failed harvest. Then look for the turn. Before “But,” Text 2 agrees that the dry years did harm. After it, Text 2 points to the thirstier wheat, since the old wheat came through fine. In a line: “The drought hurt, but the new wheat is why harvests fell by half.”
-
Predict the answer, with a because. “Text 2 would say drought doesn't explain it all, because the old wheat did fine in the same dry years.”
-
Check each choice, reason first. Most choices give a view (agreeing, doubting, rejecting) and then a reason. Find the sentence behind the reason, then check that the view is as strong as the author's.
- A says dry weather did no harm. Text 2 says dry years hurt any crop, so A turns “yes, but” into a flat no.
- B doubts the claim, which is right, but neither text says how many years the records cover.
- D uses words from both texts, but neither one says the drought made farmers switch.
- C matches the prediction. Its reason is Text 2's last sentence in other words.
Before you cross a choice off, say what's wrong with it. If you can't, give it a second look.
Who's answering whom
The question can turn the pair around and ask how the author of Text 1 would respond to Text 2, so check who's answering. It can also name a person instead of an author, such as “the researchers in Text 2.” Then you want that person's view, which isn't always the author's. When a claim is underlined, the answer responds to those words alone.
Text 1: “Records from those years show far less rain than usual. Historian Ana Ruiz concludes that drought caused the crop failure.”
Text 2: “Fields still sown with the old wheat lost little of their harvest.”
Trap: A real point, but not the one asked
“Text 1 relies on rainfall records, while Text 2 compares fields of old and new wheat.” That's true, but it never says what Text 2 thinks of Ruiz's claim.
What to do: Read the choice as an answer to the question's exact words. If it answers a different question, cross it off.
Read past the praise
Text 1: “Lin's survey shows that the bay's oysters are recovering.”
Text 2: “Though Lin's survey was careful, it sampled only the harbor, where the water is warmest.”
Authors often grant a point before they push back, and a turn word (though, although, however, still, but) marks the switch.
Trap: The compliment taken for the point
“The author of Text 2 would trust Lin's results because the survey was carefully done.” It pulls because “careful” is the first thing Text 2 says.
What to do: Find the turn and take the author's view from the words after it.
Here the last few words, “where the water is warmest,” carry the limit. Oysters in the colder parts of the bay may not be recovering, and Text 2 leaves you to work that out. So reread the last sentence of each text in full, including anything after a comma or inside parentheses or dashes.
Who said what
Text 1: “Edith Marsh, who drew the region's wildflowers in the 1890s, is remembered as a gifted amateur.”
Text 2: “Some writers call Marsh a hobbyist. Marsh was not an amateur. For twenty years the state museum paid her for her drawings.”
Turn a “not” sentence into what it does say. “Not an amateur” means Marsh was a professional. It doesn't mean Text 2 thinks less of her work.
Then keep each view with its owner. “Some writers call Marsh a hobbyist” is those writers' view, which Text 2 reports so it can argue against it.
Trap: Lost track of who said it
“Both authors would agree that Marsh drew as a hobby.” The word hobbyist is in Text 2, but it belongs to the writers Text 2 disagrees with.
What to do: Name who holds each part of the choice, and find the sentence behind it.
A choice can also swap the two views, as in “Text 1 treats Marsh as a professional, while Text 2 treats her as an amateur.” Your one-line summary of each text catches this.
Name what Text 2 does
“Text 2 disagrees” won't pick out a choice, because several choices will say that in some form. Name the move. These come up most:
- Grants a point and adds a limit: “The survey was careful, but it covered only the harbor.”
- Offers another cause for the same result: “The new wheat explains the failed harvest.”
- Accepts the data and doubts the conclusion: “The counts are right, but they don't show the birds moving north.”
- Points out an assumption Text 1 never states: “Text 1 assumes the old records are complete, and they aren't.”
- Gives an exception to a “must” or “requires”: “Text 1 says the bird must nest on cliffs, but one colony nests in trees.”
- Corrects the timing or order: “The tool appeared a century earlier than Text 1 says.”
- Widens the cause: “Drought was one part of a wider change in climate.”
- Names a standard Text 1 doesn't meet: “A fair test needs a comparison group, and this study had none.”
Text 1: “Worker ants that feed the colony's young are acting selflessly.”
Text 2: “Feeding the young also passes on the workers' own genes, so the behavior is not purely selfless.”
Trap: A yes-but read as a no
“The author of Text 2 would say the workers act selfishly.” Text 2 only says the behavior isn't purely selfless. The word “also” shows it still counts feeding the young as help for the colony.
What to do: Name the move Text 2 makes, here a limit, and keep the choice that names that move.
A response can also be a yes, as when Text 2 agrees with Text 1 and takes the point further. Don't hunt for a clash just because the question says “respond.”
When both authors would agree
Text 1: “The hill town of Varra was abandoned around 1400. Ash in its wells shows that a fire swept the town, and no one rebuilt.”
Text 2: “Varra's fire came after most houses were already empty. Tax rolls show families leaving for the coast for decades before it.”
These two argue about why Varra emptied. Look under that argument for what both take for granted.
Pick the statement both authors would sign.
- Right
- The people of Varra eventually left the town.
- Wrong
- A fire drove the people of Varra away.
Only Text 1 says that. Text 2 says most people had gone before the fire.
A choice can sound shared just because both texts use a word like “fire,” so check that each author says it. A plain, general choice can be right too, as long as both texts back every part of it.
Using one text to explain the other
A rarer question asks you to use the idea in one text to explain a result in the other. The question may call that idea “the model presented in Text 1.”
Text 1: “Finches form bigger flocks when hawks are near, since more eyes spot a hawk sooner.”
Text 2: “Finches in the Arlo Valley form unusually large flocks all year.”
You won't always predict the exact sentence, so predict which way the explanation runs. In Text 1, hawks lead to bigger flocks.
Keep the arrow pointing the way Text 1 points it.
- Right
- Hawks may be common in the Arlo Valley.
- Wrong
- The large flocks may draw hawks to the Arlo Valley.
The wrong choice runs Text 1's arrow backward, from flocks to hawks.
When two choices share a view
Text 1: “Historian Ana Ruiz concludes that drought caused the crop failure.”
Text 2: “...most farmers in the valley switched to a new wheat that needs much more water than the old kind. Fields still sown with the old wheat lost little of their harvest.”
On a hard question you can end up with two choices that differ only in the reason.
- “By doubting the claim, since the old wheat held up through the dry years”
- “By doubting the claim, since the new wheat was planted in poorer soil”
Don't reread the view they share. Put the two reasons side by side and find the sentence behind each. Text 2's last sentence backs the first, and nothing mentions soil.
Trap: True in real life
“By pointing out that harvests usually recover once the rain returns.” It sounds like something a farmer would know, but neither text says it.
What to do: Ask which sentence says it. Being true outside the texts doesn't count.
How strong the choice is
Text 1: “The frogs' bright color is passed down from their parents.”
Text 2: “The color isn't exclusively inherited. Tadpoles raised in shade grow up duller.”
Small words like “only” are part of the claim.
- Right
- The author of Text 2 would say the color does not come only from the parents.
- Wrong
- The author of Text 2 would say the color has nothing to do with the parents.
Text 2 says inheritance isn't the only cause. It never rules inheritance out.
Check these one at a time: only, solely, exclusively, entirely, confined to, always, never, must, requires, inevitably. Cover the word and reread the choice. If the text supports the choice without the word but not with it, cross the choice off.
Other strong wording works the same way. “Does not inevitably follow” leaves room for exceptions, while “does not follow” rules the link out. A choice that calls an argument flawed needs the text to point out a mistake. If the text only finds a gap, “incomplete” is as far as it goes.
A choice can be too weak as well.
Text 1: “The clay tablets were made by the temple's scribes.”
Text 2: “The tablets weren't made at the temple. Their clay comes from a riverbank three hundred miles away.”
Trap: A no softened into a maybe
“The author of Text 2 would say it's too early to tell where the tablets were made.” It sounds careful, like “more research is needed,” but Text 2 is sure.
What to do: If the text says a claim is wrong, the choice has to say so too.
If you've crossed off all four choices, one of your one-line summaries is probably too strong or too weak. Reread the turn in that text and check again.
Words in the choices
The Reading and Writing guide covers concedes, qualifies, contends, presupposes, empirical, and mitigate. Here, keep in mind that conceding a point doesn't mean accepting the conclusion, and that contending means arguing for something.
| Word | Plain meaning |
|---|---|
| concurs | Agrees outright |
| consensus | What most people in a field accept |
| disputes, contests | Argues against |
| dismissive | Treating as not worth considering, which is stronger than doubting |
| divergence | A difference, without saying who's right |
| indebted to | Built on, or owing something to |
| centrality | Being the main thing, more than just present |
Practice
Work through the three examples with the five steps, then try five more.
Text 1
Crowd managers often focus on widening exits, but the timing of arrivals may also matter. Researchers compared groups moving through a hall’s doorway, either approaching all at once or advancing at brief intervals after release signals. They timed each group from its first arrival at the threshold until its last member passed through. The groups with spaced arrivals cleared the doorway faster. Video showed less crowding immediately around the exit.
Text 2
The reported reduction in passage time offers useful evidence about managing crowded exits. However, people awaiting release signals must remain in a holding area before approaching the doorway, and some of that waiting occurs before anyone reaches the threshold. An event planner needs to know when the entire group can begin its next activity, which depends on time spent both waiting and moving.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?
- A
The author would reject the finding, arguing that spacing arrivals cannot shorten the time needed to pass through doorways.
- B
The author would credit the signals with making the doorway easier to locate from the holding area.
- C
The author would question whether differences in the groups’ usual walking speeds made the comparison unreliable.
- D
The author would accept the benefit while cautioning that time saved at the exit may involve waiting elsewhere.
Show the answer
- A
The author would reject the finding, arguing that spacing arrivals cannot shorten the time needed to pass through doorways.
This treats Text 2’s concern about what the recorded times capture as a rejection of the observed reduction. Text 2 calls that reduction “useful evidence” but explains that the measurement excludes waiting before the group reaches the threshold.
- B
The author would credit the signals with making the doorway easier to locate from the holding area.
This combines the release signals, doorway, and holding area into an explanation about locating the exit. Both texts discuss timing and movement, not difficulty finding the doorway.
- C
The author would question whether differences in the groups’ usual walking speeds made the comparison unreliable.
This introduces a difference in usual walking speeds that Text 2 never questions. Text 2 focuses on the waiting time omitted from the researchers’ measurement.
- D
The author would accept the benefit while cautioning that time saved at the exit may involve waiting elsewhere.
Correct answerText 2 accepts that spaced arrivals reduce passage time at the doorway, calling the result “useful evidence.” It cautions that the saved time may be offset by waiting in the holding area before the measured interval begins.
Solution
The underlined claim concerns the time from the first person’s arrival at the threshold until the last person passes through. Text 2 accepts the finding within that measured interval, describing it as “useful evidence.”
Text 2 then points out that people released at intervals wait in a holding area before reaching the threshold. Because an event planner needs the total time until everyone can begin the next activity, the planner must count both that waiting time and the time spent moving through the doorway. The response that matches Text 2 therefore accepts the benefit at the exit while cautioning that it may involve waiting elsewhere.
Text 1
Growers cultivating mushrooms in beds of chopped straw obtained larger harvests after briefly heating the straw, a treatment that left the total amount of water unchanged. The improvement probably reflects reduced competition from other organisms for resources within the beds. Determining the lowest effective treatment temperature should therefore be the next priority for growers seeking to make this preparation method more efficient.
Text 2
The reported increase is persuasive, but reduced competition is unlikely to explain it. Examinations of the heated beds found neither fewer competing organisms nor additional accessible nutrients. They did, however, detect a redistribution of water toward the areas occupied by mushrooms, and equal totals can conceal differences in where water is available. The crop most likely benefited from better access to existing moisture, so growers should study how heating moves water through the beds before running further temperature trials.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of Text 1 and Text 2 view the cause of the larger mushroom harvests?
- A
The first author credits reduced competition, whereas the second favors better water access because treatment makes the straw absorb water faster.
- B
The first author attributes the increase to more accessible moisture, whereas the second attributes it to fewer organisms competing with the crop.
- C
The first author prioritizes establishing a suitable heating temperature, whereas the second prioritizes investigating water distribution before refining the treatment conditions.
- D
The first author credits reduced competition, whereas the second favors better water access because treatment relocates existing moisture toward the crop.
Show the answer
- A
The first author credits reduced competition, whereas the second favors better water access because treatment makes the straw absorb water faster.
This choice identifies the authors’ explanations accurately, then adds an unsupported reason: faster water absorption. Text 2 reports that existing water moved “toward the areas occupied by mushrooms,” not that the straw absorbed water faster.
- B
The first author attributes the increase to more accessible moisture, whereas the second attributes it to fewer organisms competing with the crop.
This choice reverses the authors’ positions. Text 1 proposes reduced competition, while Text 2 favors improved water access based on the observed redistribution of moisture.
- C
The first author prioritizes establishing a suitable heating temperature, whereas the second prioritizes investigating water distribution before refining the treatment conditions.
This choice accurately compares the authors’ research priorities, but the stem asks how they explain the larger harvests. Deciding what growers should study next is a different point from identifying what caused the increase.
- D
The first author credits reduced competition, whereas the second favors better water access because treatment relocates existing moisture toward the crop.
Correct answerText 1 says the improvement “probably reflects reduced competition.” Text 2 rejects that view because the heated beds had no fewer competing organisms, and it concludes that the crop “most likely benefited from better access to existing moisture,” citing water redistributed toward the mushrooms.
Solution
The stem asks for a difference in the authors’ explanations of the larger harvests. Text 1 states that the improvement “probably reflects reduced competition” for resources in the beds.
Text 2 reports that examinations of the heated beds found neither fewer competing organisms nor additional accessible nutrients, but did find water redistributed toward the mushrooms. The author concludes that the crop “most likely benefited from better access to existing moisture,” even though the total amount of water stayed unchanged.
The choice that matches this contrast pairs reduced competition with existing moisture moving toward the crop. Faster absorption adds a mechanism the examinations did not establish; assigning the moisture explanation to the first author reverses the positions; comparing what growers should study next answers a different question.
Text 1
By replacing unrestricted interviews with a standardized questionnaire, Ferreira’s investigation of altitude sickness separates physiological adjustment from differences in participants’ descriptive habits, which otherwise make successive assessments difficult to compare with confidence. The resulting numerical precision warrants treating declining questionnaire scores as evidence of acclimatization: identical categories preserve a consistent standard against which investigators can distinguish improvement from changes in how participants characterize discomfort.
Text 2
The numerical precision of Ferreira’s questionnaire is an impressive accomplishment, particularly for successive assessments in which unrestricted interviews would introduce interpretive uncertainty for investigators evaluating descriptions of altitude sickness. Nevertheless, participants may gradually reserve a category such as “severe” for increasingly disruptive discomfort, so standardized categories can conceal altered expectations; unrestricted interviews better reveal whether declining scores represent physiological adjustment or merely recalibrated descriptions.
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?
- A
Combining unrestricted interviews with standardized questionnaire scores allows investigators to eliminate interpretive uncertainty when distinguishing physiological adjustment from changes in participants’ descriptions of discomfort.
- B
Unrestricted interviews offer a more dependable basis than standardized questionnaires for distinguishing physical improvement from changes in the standards participants use to describe their discomfort.
- C
How people express what they feel can affect whether a researcher correctly identifies changes in their physical response to spending time at higher elevations.
- D
The numerical precision achieved by repeated questionnaires makes declining scores sufficient evidence of acclimatization, even when participants might describe comparable discomfort differently over time.
Show the answer
- A
Combining unrestricted interviews with standardized questionnaire scores allows investigators to eliminate interpretive uncertainty when distinguishing physiological adjustment from changes in participants’ descriptions of discomfort.
This choice combines the texts’ terms into a recommendation neither author makes. Text 1 favors standardized questionnaires, and Text 2 favors unrestricted interviews; neither proposes combining them to eliminate interpretive uncertainty.
- B
Unrestricted interviews offer a more dependable basis than standardized questionnaires for distinguishing physical improvement from changes in the standards participants use to describe their discomfort.
This choice assigns Text 2’s preference for unrestricted interviews to both authors. Text 1 argues that standardized questionnaires provide a consistent standard for distinguishing physical improvement from changes in descriptions.
- C
How people express what they feel can affect whether a researcher correctly identifies changes in their physical response to spending time at higher elevations.
Correct answerBoth authors recognize that changes in how participants describe discomfort can affect researchers’ judgments about physiological adjustment. Text 1 argues that standardized categories control this problem, while Text 2 argues that participants’ changing expectations can preserve it.
- D
The numerical precision achieved by repeated questionnaires makes declining scores sufficient evidence of acclimatization, even when participants might describe comparable discomfort differently over time.
This choice treats Text 2’s opening praise for numerical precision as acceptance of a conclusion the rest of that text challenges. Text 2 explains that declining scores may reflect recalibrated descriptions, so precision alone does not establish acclimatization.
Solution
The stem asks for a point both authors accept. Text 1 identifies differences in participants’ descriptive habits as a problem for comparing assessments. It argues that standardized questionnaire categories let researchers distinguish physiological improvement from changes in how participants describe discomfort.
Text 2 also recognizes that descriptions can affect the interpretation of scores. Participants may change what they mean by “severe,” causing scores to decline even without physiological adjustment. This author favors unrestricted interviews for revealing that change.
The authors disagree about which method addresses the problem, but both accept that how people express discomfort can affect whether researchers correctly identify physical adjustment to higher elevations.
Next steps
Drills need a free account, which also saves your lesson progress on every device. Sign up free
Related lessons