📐 SAT
📝 ACT
🎓 AP Exams
About Contact Blog Privacy Policy

SAT Reading & Writing: Cross-Text Connections (Drill 2)

Drill 2 · Reading & Writing · Cross-Text Connections

0 / 5
←
Previous drill
Drill 1
Next drill
Drill 3
→
More Sat Reading Writing Cross Text Connections drills
Drill 1 5 questions →
Drill 2 — current you are here
Drill 3 5 questions →

About This Drill

SAT Reading & Writing: Cross-Text Connections (Drill 2) is a Reading & Writing practice drill covering Cross-Text Connections. It contains 5 original questions developed by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.

SAT Cross-Text Connections questions test your ability to identify relationships between two texts, including agreement, disagreement, qualification, and extension. This drill asks you to determine how one author would react to, support, or challenge the other's claim.

Questions & Explanations

Text 1
Microplastics, tiny fragments of plastic less than five millimeters in diameter, have been detected in virtually every marine ecosystem studied. Marine biologist Elena Voss and colleagues analyzed water samples from 12 deep-ocean trenches and found microplastic concentrations even at depths exceeding 10,000 meters. Their findings led them to conclude that no marine environment remains uncontaminated by plastic pollution. To explain how microplastics reach such depths, oceanographer James Whitfield proposed that they are carried down by sinking organic matter, a process known as marine snow.
Text 2
Voss and colleagues acknowledge that microplastics are transported by various mechanisms, but the marine snow hypothesis requires that plastic fragments remain attached to organic particles throughout a descent of several kilometers. Laboratory experiments, however, show that turbulence and microbial degradation of the organic matter typically cause most attached plastics to detach well before reaching the deep ocean floor.

Question 1. Which choice best describes how Text 1 and Text 2 relate to each other?

  • A) Text 1 presents a finding and one proposed explanation for it, whereas Text 2 provides evidence that calls that explanation into question. ✓
  • B) Text 1 describes a methodology that Text 2 argues is flawed.
  • C) Text 1 proposes two competing hypotheses, whereas Text 2 advocates for one over the other.
  • D) Text 1 and Text 2 both support the same explanation but emphasize different aspects of the evidence.

Explanation: Text 1 presents Voss's finding (microplastics in deep trenches) and Whitfield's proposed explanation (marine snow transport). Text 2 then challenges the marine snow hypothesis with laboratory evidence showing that plastics detach during descent. The structure moves from finding to proposed explanation to complicating evidence. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 challenges the explanation, not the methodology. Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 presents only one explanation. Choice D is incorrect because the texts don't support the same explanation.

Text 1
Despite their importance to local communities, oral histories have received relatively little scholarly attention from mainstream historians. This neglect is particularly pronounced when the oral histories originate from marginalized communities, whose accounts of significant events are frequently excluded from published historical records. Historians who rely primarily on written documents inevitably produce an incomplete picture of the past.
Text 2
In the 1970s, historian and activist Studs Terkel compiled hundreds of oral histories from working-class Americans into a series of acclaimed books, including Working and Hard Times. Terkel's subjects, factory workers, domestic laborers, farmers, provided vivid firsthand accounts of daily life and major historical events. Though widely read by the general public, Terkel's oral history collections have been largely overlooked by academic historians, who have questioned whether such accounts meet the evidentiary standards of the discipline.

Question 2. Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely regard the situation described in the underlined sentence in Text 2?

  • A) As typical of a broader pattern in which historians undervalue oral accounts, especially those from underrepresented groups ✓
  • B) As surprising, because Terkel's collections were too popular to be ignored by serious scholars
  • C) As justified, because oral histories from working-class subjects are inherently less reliable than written documents
  • D) As evidence that Terkel's interview methodology was not rigorous enough to produce credible historical sources

Explanation: Text 1 establishes that oral histories, especially those from marginalized communities, are systematically neglected by mainstream historians. The situation in Text 2 (Terkel's working-class oral histories being ignored by academics) is a specific instance of this broader pattern. The author of Text 1 would see it as typical, not surprising. Choice B is incorrect because Text 1 doesn't suggest popularity affects scholarly attention. Choice C contradicts Text 1's argument. Choice D is incorrect because Text 1 doesn't discuss methodology.

Text 1
For decades, neuroscientists believed that adult human brains could not generate new neurons, a process called neurogenesis. This view held that humans are born with a fixed supply of neurons, which gradually decline with age. The inability to produce new neurons was thought to explain why recovery from brain injuries is so limited compared to the regeneration seen in other tissues like skin and bone.
Text 2
In a series of studies beginning in the late 1990s, neuroscientist Fred Gage and colleagues demonstrated that new neurons are continuously produced in at least two regions of the adult human brain: the hippocampus, which is involved in memory formation, and the olfactory bulb, which processes smell. Gage's team used chemical markers to label newly divided cells and confirmed that these cells matured into functioning neurons that integrated into existing neural circuits.

Question 3. Based on the texts, how would Gage and colleagues (Text 2) most likely respond to the view described in Text 1?

  • A) By arguing that the adult brain generates new neurons in certain regions, contradicting the assumption that neuron supply is entirely fixed ✓
  • B) By conceding that neurogenesis occurs only in young adults and declines with age, partially supporting the traditional view
  • C) By suggesting that neuron loss with aging is more rapid than Text 1 indicates
  • D) By asserting that brain injury recovery is not related to the production of new neurons

Explanation: Gage's research directly contradicts the traditional view that adult brains cannot produce new neurons. By demonstrating neurogenesis in the hippocampus and olfactory bulb, Gage and colleagues would challenge the foundational assumption described in Text 1. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't limit neurogenesis to young adults. Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't discuss the rate of neuron loss. Choice D is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't address brain injury recovery.

Text 1
The digitization of museum collections has made millions of artworks viewable online, an achievement often celebrated as a democratization of cultural access. People who could never afford to travel to the Louvre or the British Museum can now examine their holdings from anywhere in the world. This virtual access, advocates argue, effectively eliminates geography and wealth as barriers to engaging with great art.
Text 2
Although digital images of artworks are now widely available, experiencing a painting on a screen is different from encountering it in person. Scale, texture, the interplay of light on a painted surface, and the spatial context of a gallery all contribute to the aesthetic experience in ways a screen cannot replicate. Claiming that digital access is equivalent to physical access overstates what technology can deliver and risks reducing public pressure to make museums themselves more affordable and welcoming.

Question 4. Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim made by the advocates discussed in Text 1?

  • A) By arguing that digital access, while valuable, cannot fully substitute for the in-person experience and may discourage efforts to improve physical access to museums ✓
  • B) By asserting that most people prefer viewing art in person and have no interest in digital collections
  • C) By suggesting that museums should stop digitizing their collections and instead focus entirely on reducing admission prices
  • D) By conceding that digital images are now of sufficient quality to replicate the experience of viewing art in a gallery

Explanation: Text 2 makes two key arguments: (1) digital access cannot replicate the full aesthetic experience of seeing art in person, and (2) treating digital access as equivalent may reduce pressure to make physical museums more accessible. This directly responds to the advocates' claim in Text 1 that virtual access eliminates barriers. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't claim people have no interest in digital collections. Choice C overstates Text 2's position, the author doesn't oppose digitization. Choice D contradicts Text 2's central argument.

Text 1
A study by agricultural scientist Priya Mehta found that crops grown in soil treated with a specific blend of mycorrhizal fungi produced yields 25 to 40 percent higher than crops grown in untreated soil. Based on these results, Mehta's team recommended that farmers widely adopt mycorrhizal treatments as a sustainable alternative to synthetic fertilizers, arguing that the fungi enhance plants' ability to absorb nutrients from the soil.
Text 2
While Mehta's findings on mycorrhizal fungi are promising, the study was conducted on a single crop variety grown in nutrient-poor sandy soil, conditions that are especially favorable to mycorrhizal colonization. In field trials on diverse soil types, other researchers have found that the yield benefits of mycorrhizal treatments vary considerably and sometimes disappear entirely in nutrient-rich soils where plants already have adequate access to minerals. Broad recommendations for adoption may therefore be premature.

Question 5. Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Mehta's recommendation in Text 1?

  • A) By cautioning that the recommendation may not be well supported because the study's conditions do not reflect the range of environments in which farmers actually grow crops ✓
  • B) By arguing that synthetic fertilizers have been proven to outperform mycorrhizal treatments in every soil type
  • C) By suggesting that Mehta's study contained significant errors in measuring crop yields
  • D) By disputing the idea that mycorrhizal fungi interact with plant root systems at all

Explanation: Text 2 argues that Mehta's study was conducted under conditions especially favorable to the fungi (nutrient-poor sandy soil), and that results vary in other soils. This means the broad recommendation for farmer adoption may be premature because the findings may not generalize. Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't claim synthetic fertilizers are always superior. Choice C is incorrect because Text 2 doesn't question the data, only its generalizability. Choice D is incorrect because Text 2 accepts that the fungi work, just not universally.