SAT Reading & Writing – Craft and Structure
Cross-Text Connections
Comparing and synthesizing information across multiple passages
Cross-Text Connections questions test your ability to compare and contrast information from two related passages, identify relationships between texts, recognize agreements and disagreements, and synthesize ideas from multiple sources. On the SAT, you'll read two shorter passages on the same topic and determine how they relate, what they share, and where they differ.
Success requires careful reading of both texts, identifying each author's main point and perspective, recognizing similarities and differences, and understanding nuanced relationships between sources. These synthesis skills aren't just test strategies—they represent critical academic abilities for research, evidence evaluation, understanding multiple perspectives, and integrating information from various sources essential for college-level work and informed decision-making.
Understanding Cross-Text Connections
Types of Relationships
Texts can relate to each other in various ways.
Disagreement/Contradiction: Texts present opposing views or findings
Elaboration: One text provides additional detail or examples for the other
Qualification: One text adds nuance, limits, or exceptions to the other
Evidence: One text provides data supporting claims in the other
Explanation: One text clarifies or explains concepts from the other
Question Formats
Cross-text questions follow predictable patterns.
"Which finding from Text 2 would most directly support [claim from Text 1]?"
"Both texts suggest that..."
"Unlike Text 1, Text 2 emphasizes..."
"How does Text 2 relate to Text 1?"
Reading Strategy for Paired Texts
How to approach two passages efficiently.
Read Text 2 carefully: Do the same, noting topic similarities
Compare as you read: Note agreements, disagreements, additions
Identify each author's stance: What does each believe or argue?
Look for explicit connections: Does Text 2 reference Text 1's topic?
Note differences in focus: Same topic, different emphases
Common Traps to Avoid
Mistakes students frequently make.
Assuming disagreement: Texts on same topic don't necessarily contradict
Missing nuance: Slight differences matter (emphasizes vs. mentions)
Overgeneralizing: "Both texts discuss X" doesn't mean they agree about X
Confusing texts: Attributing Text 1's claim to Text 2
Essential Cross-Text Comparison Strategies
Identify Each Text's Main Point First
Text 1 main idea: What is the primary claim or focus?
Text 2 main idea: What is ITS primary claim or focus?
Compare main ideas: Do they support, contradict, or add to each other?
Clear understanding first: Don't compare until you grasp each individually
Look for Explicit Relationship Signals
Agreement indicators: "Similarly," "also," "supports," "confirms"
Disagreement indicators: "However," "contradicts," "unlike," "challenges"
Addition indicators: "Furthermore," "additionally," "expands on"
Question wording: "Unlike Text 1" signals looking for differences
Check Against Both Texts
For "both texts" questions: Answer must be true for BOTH
For "Text 2 response" questions: Base answer on Text 2's perspective
For "unlike" questions: Find where texts differ, not just what's unique
Verify in text: Don't rely on memory—check each passage
Understand Degrees of Agreement
Strong agreement: Both make the same claim explicitly
Weak agreement: Compatible but focus on different aspects
No contradiction: Not disagreeing doesn't mean agreeing
Subtle differences: "Emphasizes" vs. "mentions" shows focus distinction
Common Pitfalls & Expert Tips
❌ Answering based on only one text
If question asks "both texts suggest," the answer must be supported by BOTH passages. Check each text individually before selecting.
❌ Confusing topic similarity with agreement
Both texts discuss climate change doesn't mean they agree about solutions, causes, or severity. Same topic ≠ same position.
❌ Missing author's actual perspective
Text mentions an idea doesn't mean the author endorses it. Distinguish between what's discussed and what's advocated.
❌ Overlooking qualifying language
"Text 1 emphasizes X while Text 2 mentions X" shows different focus levels, not just that both discuss X.
✓ Expert Tip: Create a mental comparison chart
As you read, note: Text 1 says/believes/focuses on X; Text 2 says/believes/focuses on Y. Direct comparison prevents confusion.
✓ Expert Tip: Pay attention to question phrasing
"Unlike Text 1" means find a DIFFERENCE. "Both texts" means find COMMONALITY. "Would respond" means apply Text 2's perspective to Text 1's claim.
✓ Expert Tip: Identify what's unique vs. what differs
Text 1 mentioning something Text 2 doesn't isn't necessarily a disagreement—it might just be different focus. Look for actual contradictions.
Fully Worked SAT-Style Examples
Text 1:
Sleep deprivation significantly impairs cognitive function, particularly affecting memory consolidation and decision-making abilities. Studies show that people who sleep less than six hours per night demonstrate measurably slower reaction times and reduced problem-solving capacity compared to those who sleep seven to nine hours.
Text 2:
Recent research on professional drivers revealed that insufficient sleep increases accident risk substantially. Drivers who reported sleeping fewer than six hours showed impaired judgment and slower reflexes, contributing to higher crash rates. These findings support growing concerns about sleep's crucial role in maintaining mental acuity.
Question:
Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree with which statement?
Answer Choices:
A) Professional drivers experience more sleep deprivation than the general population.
B) Getting fewer than six hours of sleep can negatively affect mental performance.
C) Memory consolidation is the most important function affected by sleep loss.
D) Seven to nine hours of sleep is optimal for everyone.
Correct Answer: B
Text 1 analysis: States that sleeping less than six hours causes "slower reaction times and reduced problem-solving capacity"—mental performance impairment.
Text 2 analysis: States that sleeping fewer than six hours causes "impaired judgment and slower reflexes"—also mental performance impairment.
Why B is correct: Both texts explicitly support this claim with similar evidence about sub-6-hour sleep harming mental function.
Why A is wrong: Only Text 2 discusses professional drivers; Text 1 doesn't mention them, so "both authors" can't agree.
Why C is wrong: Only Text 1 mentions memory consolidation specifically; Text 2 doesn't discuss it.
Why D is wrong: Only Text 1 mentions 7-9 hours; Text 2 doesn't specify optimal sleep duration.
Text 1:
Coral bleaching occurs when ocean temperatures rise, causing corals to expel the symbiotic algae that provide them with nutrients and color. While coral can recover if temperatures normalize quickly, prolonged heat exposure leads to coral death. Climate change is accelerating bleaching events, threatening reef ecosystems worldwide.
Text 2:
Recent studies show that some coral species possess surprising resilience to temperature fluctuations. Researchers discovered coral populations in naturally warm lagoons that have adapted to withstand higher temperatures without bleaching. These heat-resistant corals may provide hope for reef restoration efforts, as they could potentially be transplanted to vulnerable areas.
Question:
Which choice best describes a difference between how the two texts discuss coral bleaching?
Answer Choices:
A) Text 1 explains the biological mechanism, while Text 2 focuses on potential solutions.
B) Text 1 emphasizes coral vulnerability, while Text 2 emphasizes coral adaptability.
C) Text 1 discusses ocean temperatures, while Text 2 discusses reef ecosystems.
D) Text 1 focuses on symbiotic algae, while Text 2 focuses on climate change.
Correct Answer: B
Text 1 focus: Corals expel algae when stressed, can die from prolonged heat, climate change threatens reefs—emphasizes danger and vulnerability.
Text 2 focus: Some corals resist heat, have adapted to high temperatures, offer hope for restoration—emphasizes resilience and adaptability.
Why B is correct: Captures the tonal and focus difference: Text 1 stresses threat/vulnerability; Text 2 stresses resilience/hope. This is the key distinction in how they approach the same topic.
Why A is wrong: Text 1 does explain mechanism, but Text 2 discusses adaptation more than solutions per se.
Why C is wrong: Both texts discuss ocean temperatures; both mention reef ecosystems. Not a distinguishing difference.
Why D is wrong: Text 1 mentions algae but that's not its focus; Text 2 doesn't focus on climate change at all.
Text 1:
Standardized testing provides objective measures of student achievement, allowing educators to identify learning gaps and compare performance across different schools and districts. Without such assessments, determining educational quality becomes subjective and inconsistent, making it difficult to hold schools accountable for student outcomes.
Text 2:
Critics of standardized testing argue that these assessments capture only a narrow range of skills and knowledge. Tests cannot measure creativity, critical thinking, or collaborative abilities—competencies increasingly important in modern careers. Moreover, test scores correlate strongly with socioeconomic status, raising concerns about whether exams truly measure learning or simply reflect existing inequalities.
Question:
Based on Text 2, how would the author most likely respond to the argument in Text 1 that standardized testing provides "objective measures"?
Answer Choices:
A) By agreeing that objectivity is necessary but suggesting alternative assessment methods.
B) By questioning whether tests truly measure learning objectively when they correlate with socioeconomic factors.
C) By arguing that holding schools accountable is more important than concerns about test limitations.
D) By emphasizing that learning gaps can be identified through teacher observations.
Correct Answer: B
Text 1's claim: Tests provide "objective measures" of achievement.
Text 2's relevant argument: "Test scores correlate strongly with socioeconomic status, raising concerns about whether exams truly measure learning or simply reflect existing inequalities."
Why B is correct: Text 2 directly challenges the "objectivity" claim by arguing tests may reflect socioeconomic factors rather than pure learning, questioning whether they're truly objective measures.
Why A is wrong: Text 2 doesn't explicitly propose alternative methods or agree with the need for objectivity.
Why C is wrong: Contradicts Text 2's position—Text 2 emphasizes concerns, not that accountability outweighs them.
Why D is wrong: Text 2 doesn't mention teacher observations at all.
Text 1:
Urban gardens provide numerous benefits to city communities beyond food production. They create green spaces that improve mental health, reduce urban heat island effects, and strengthen social bonds as neighbors work together on shared plots. These gardens transform unused lots into community assets.
Text 2:
A recent study of Detroit's urban farming initiatives revealed measurable improvements in participants' well-being. Residents involved in community gardens reported 25% higher satisfaction with their neighborhoods and increased interaction with neighbors. Additionally, temperature measurements showed garden areas remained 3-5°F cooler than surrounding pavement during summer months.
Question:
Which finding from Text 2, if true, would most directly support a claim made in Text 1?
Answer Choices:
A) The finding that community gardens are located in Detroit.
B) The finding that garden areas remained cooler than surrounding pavement.
C) The finding that residents participated in farming initiatives.
D) The finding that the study was recently conducted.
Correct Answer: B
Text 1's claim: Urban gardens "reduce urban heat island effects."
Text 2's relevant finding: "Garden areas remained 3-5°F cooler than surrounding pavement"—concrete evidence of temperature reduction.
Why B is correct: The temperature data from Text 2 directly proves Text 1's claim about heat reduction. This is specific evidence supporting that assertion.
Why A is wrong: Location in Detroit doesn't support any specific benefit claimed in Text 1.
Why C is wrong: That residents participate is a fact but doesn't support specific claims about benefits.
Why D is wrong: When the study was conducted is irrelevant to supporting Text 1's claims.
Text 1:
Archaeologists have long debated whether Easter Island's famous stone statues contributed to the civilization's collapse. The traditional narrative suggests that constructing and transporting the massive moai depleted the island's forests, leading to ecological disaster and societal breakdown.
Text 2:
Recent archaeological evidence complicates the collapse narrative. While deforestation did occur on Easter Island, new findings suggest the population remained stable for centuries after the forests disappeared. Researchers now believe that European contact and introduced diseases played a more significant role in the population decline than environmental factors.
Question:
Which choice best describes the relationship between the two texts?
Answer Choices:
A) Text 2 provides additional evidence that supports the theory presented in Text 1.
B) Text 2 presents findings that challenge the traditional explanation described in Text 1.
C) Text 2 explains the archaeological methods used to reach conclusions discussed in Text 1.
D) Text 2 focuses on European contact while Text 1 focuses on stone statues.
Correct Answer: B
Text 1's position: Presents "traditional narrative" that statue construction caused ecological collapse and societal breakdown.
Text 2's position: "Complicates the collapse narrative," shows population remained stable after deforestation, proposes European contact as more significant factor.
Why B is correct: Text 2 explicitly challenges ("complicates") the traditional explanation that Text 1 describes. It doesn't completely reject deforestation but argues against it being the primary cause of collapse.
Why A is wrong: Text 2 doesn't support the traditional theory—it challenges it with contradictory evidence.
Why C is wrong: Text 2 doesn't explain methods; it presents findings that challenge conclusions.
Why D is wrong: While describing what each discusses, this doesn't capture the relationship—that Text 2 CHALLENGES Text 1's explanation.
Cross-Text Comparison Checklist
Reading Strategy
✓ Identify Text 1 main idea
✓ Identify Text 2 main idea
✓ Note agreements
✓ Note differences/disagreements
Question Types
"Both texts" = check BOTH
"Unlike" = find difference
"Would respond" = Text 2 view
"Support" = evidence match
Cross-Text Connections: Synthesizing Multiple Perspectives
Cross-Text Connections questions assess your ability to compare, contrast, and synthesize information from multiple sources—an essential academic skill transcending standardized testing to become fundamental for research, evidence evaluation, understanding complex issues, and making informed judgments based on multiple perspectives. The SAT tests this competency because working with paired texts represents sophisticated reading: recognizing that topics can be approached from different angles, understanding that sources may agree on some points while disagreeing on others, appreciating how evidence from one source can support or challenge claims in another, and developing the synthesis skills necessary for academic research where integrating multiple sources is standard practice. When determining "how would Text 2's author respond to Text 1's claim" or "which statement would both authors agree with," you practice the same analytical comparison required for literature reviews synthesizing findings across studies, legal analysis comparing precedents and statutes, policy evaluation weighing competing proposals, journalism presenting balanced coverage incorporating multiple viewpoints, and academic writing integrating sources to build arguments. Successful cross-text analysis requires multiple simultaneous processes: understanding each text individually before comparing (knowing what each actually says and argues), identifying areas of overlap and divergence (where sources discuss similar topics and where they differ), recognizing degrees of agreement (strong alignment versus weak compatibility versus outright contradiction), understanding focus differences (both texts discuss X but one emphasizes Y aspect while the other emphasizes Z aspect), and appreciating that discussing the same topic doesn't imply agreement about that topic. Common errors reveal incomplete synthesis: answering based on only one text when questions require both, confusing topic similarity with position agreement (both discuss climate change doesn't mean both support the same solutions), missing the author's actual stance (text mentions an idea doesn't mean author endorses it), overlooking qualifying language that signals emphasis differences ("primarily focuses on" versus "mentions"), and attributing claims from one text to the other. Question formats vary strategically: "both texts suggest" requires finding genuine commonality supported in each passage, "unlike Text 1" explicitly directs attention to differences not just unique content, "would respond" asks you to apply one author's perspective to another's claims requiring deep understanding of each position, "which finding would support" tests ability to match evidence to claims across texts, and "relationship between texts" requires understanding overall how they interact—support, challenge, elaborate, or qualify each other. The sophisticated reader recognizes relationship patterns: texts can agree on problems while proposing different solutions, accept similar evidence while drawing different conclusions, use different emphases to serve different purposes, or present complementary information addressing different aspects of complex issues. Understanding these relationships requires attention to tone and emphasis: one text describing coral "vulnerability" while another emphasizes coral "resilience" signals different framings despite discussing the same phenomenon; one text "focusing primarily on" factor X while another "mentions" X reveals focus hierarchy not just content difference. The systematic approach to cross-text questions—reading each passage carefully while noting main ideas and perspectives, creating mental comparison chart as you read (Text 1 says/believes/emphasizes X; Text 2 says/believes/emphasizes Y), checking answers against BOTH texts when required, understanding question-specific requirements ("both" versus "unlike" versus "respond"), verifying that identified relationships actually exist in the texts rather than assuming based on topic similarity—represents disciplined comparative analysis applicable far beyond testing. Every time you evaluate sources for research papers, every moment you weigh competing expert opinions on policy issues, every instance you synthesize information from multiple news sources to understand events, you're exercising cross-text synthesis that enables not just comprehension but critical evaluation of how sources relate, where they align or diverge, which claims have stronger support, and how multiple perspectives combine to create fuller understanding of complex topics.