Cross-Text Connections
Represent both positions accurately, then prove the exact relationship the question asks about.
By the end, you should be able to:
- Summarize each text independently without blending their claims.
- Distinguish agreement, disagreement, qualification, and application at the level of a specific proposition.
- Predict a supportable response while preserving attribution, conditions, and evidentiary limits.
- Reject an answer that fits one passage but misrepresents the other.
Reading position saved on this browser; this is not a completion record.
3.1 Read two positions before comparing them
A pair is not one argument divided across two boxes. Read each text as an independent account, then record its main claim in a short sentence. Preserve the relationship between a claim and its support: an observation, interpretation, recommendation, and limitation do different work. Your notes can be extremely brief: "1: bus lanes improve reliability; 2: frequency also matters."
Read the question to identify the required connection. Agreement asks for a proposition both authors accept. A response question asks what one author would say about a particular claim in the other text. An account of the relationship may need both the overlap and the difference. Before choosing, ask what Text 1 contributes and what Text 2 contributes. An answer supported by only one text has passed only half the test.
W3.1: Related priorities, distinct measures
TEXT 1
A city transit analyst argues that dedicated bus lanes make existing trips more dependable. On a route with a fixed timetable, a bus protected from traffic is less likely to arrive late. The analyst therefore recommends evaluating such lanes partly by changes in arrival-time reliability.
TEXT 2
A neighborhood planner notes that predictable arrivals do not make a bus useful if service is infrequent. Someone who has just missed a reliably punctual bus may still face a long wait. The planner recommends examining service frequency alongside measures of punctuality.
How do the two texts differ in their approaches to evaluating bus service?
A. Text 1 emphasizes route coverage, whereas Text 2 emphasizes passengers' waiting time.
B. Text 1 emphasizes a reliability benefit; Text 2 broadens the proposed service measures.
C. Text 1 recommends changing timetables, whereas Text 2 recommends keeping timetables stable.
D. Text 1 treats punctuality as sufficient, whereas Text 2 regards punctuality as irrelevant.
Practice this lesson: 3.07, 3.17.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.1
Answer: B
- Reduce Text 1 to its actual claim: protected lanes can improve reliability, which should be one evaluation measure.
- Reduce Text 2 separately: reliable arrivals still leave long waits when service is infrequent. Frequency also belongs in the evaluation.
- B preserves both contributions. The planner expands the evaluation without denying that punctuality has value.
Why A fails: Text 1 discusses reliability on an existing route, not the geographic reach of service.
Why C fails: A fixed timetable supplies the comparison in Text 1; changing it is not the recommendation.
Why D fails: "Partly" rules out the sufficient claim, and "alongside" rules out the irrelevant claim.
Key takeaway: Compare the positions the authors state, not stronger positions that would make the contrast easier.
3.2 Find agreement at the level of a proposition
Shared subject matter is not shared belief. Two authors can discuss the same crop and disagree about every proposed explanation of its growth. For an agreement question, rewrite each candidate as a claim that could be true or false. Then locate evidence that each author accepts it. They need not use identical vocabulary, and agreement can concern an observation even when they disagree about its cause.
Check the strength of the proposition. Agreement that something contributes to an outcome is not agreement that it is the only cause. Agreement that evidence is useful is not agreement that it settles a debate. Do not automatically choose a vague answer: it can be too general or introduce an unsupported judgment. Choose the most precise shared claim established by the pair.
W3.2: One observation, two explanations
TEXT 1
A researcher studying rooftop gardens found that beds containing more plant species retained moisture longer than beds containing fewer species. She suggests that overlapping leaves reduced sunlight reaching the soil. She cautions, however, that the beds also differed in root density.
TEXT 2
A second researcher accepts the reported moisture difference but questions the proposed mechanism. Dense root systems can change how water moves through soil, he notes. Because root density was not held constant, the results do not establish that leaf cover produced the difference.
Based on the texts, both researchers would most likely agree with which statement?
A. Leaf cover is less influential than root density in determining water retention.
B. The gardens with fewer plant species received more direct sunlight.
C. The beds containing more plant species retained moisture longer in the study.
D. The study was designed to measure the effect of root density alone.
Practice this lesson: 3.08, 3.18.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.2
Answer: C
- Separate the reported pattern from its explanation. Text 1 reports a moisture difference and proposes leaf cover as a cause.
- Text 2 explicitly accepts the difference while challenging what caused it. Therefore, the observation is shared.
- C states that observation without deciding between leaf cover and root density.
Why A fails: Neither researcher establishes the relative influence of the two mechanisms.
Why B fails: Text 1 offers reduced sunlight as an explanation, not a separately verified shared finding.
Why D fails: Both texts identify uncontrolled differences; neither describes a study isolating root density.
Key takeaway: An accepted result can be common ground even when the explanation remains disputed.
3.3 Locate the exact point of disagreement
To identify disagreement, look for one proposition that the texts evaluate differently. "They have different views" is too loose. Name the disputed relationship: whether a policy is sufficient, whether a pattern supports an explanation, whether a technique changes a work's meaning, or whether a finding applies outside the studied conditions. Keep other agreements intact.
Distinguish denying a claim from saying that the evidence does not establish it. "The tablets were not used for trade" is stronger than "These markings alone cannot show that the tablets were used for trade." A question may legitimately concern disagreement about what the evidence warrants. In that case, the answer should describe the evidentiary dispute rather than force the second author to endorse a rival historical account.
W3.3: A dispute about what follows
TEXT 1
An archaeologist argues that standardized marks on clay tokens establish that the tokens served as units of exchange. Their repeated forms, she reasons, would have allowed traders to recognize equivalent values without negotiating the worth of each individual token.
TEXT 2
A historian observes that standardized marks also appear on objects used to track contributions to communal stores. Although the tokens may have circulated in trade, their repeated forms alone cannot establish that role. Evidence of their movement between independent households would be more informative.
The authors would most likely disagree about whether
A. the tokens' standardized marks are sufficient evidence that the tokens served as units of exchange.
B. the tokens could have been used to track contributions to communal stores.
C. objects with repeated markings can convey information about value.
D. the movement of tokens between households would help explain their use.
Practice this lesson: 3.09, 3.19.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.3
Answer: A
- Text 1 treats standardized marks as establishing exchange use. Identify that inference, not merely the existence of the marks.
- Text 2 allows exchange use but rejects the sufficiency of those marks. It requests additional evidence.
- A isolates the disagreement about evidentiary sufficiency; it does not make the historian deny all trading uses.
Why B fails: Text 2 raises this possibility, but Text 1 does not expressly reject that additional use.
Why C fails: Neither text disputes the general possibility of communicating value through markings.
Why D fails: Text 2 recommends this evidence; Text 1 does not reject its usefulness.
Key takeaway: "Not established" challenges an inference; it does not necessarily establish the opposite.
3.4 Answer response questions in the requested direction
A response question has a source of the response and a target claim. Mark both: "Text 1 author responds to Text 2's claim about permanence." Then consult the responding author's actual commitments. The fact that Text 2 appears later on the page gives it no authority over Text 1. Either author may offer the response the question requests.
Build a short, provisional response before reading the choices: accept, reject, qualify, or ask for a particular missing distinction. You are predicting an implication of the stated position, not inventing a conversation or the author's personal reaction. A good choice must accurately describe the target and follow from the responding text. Check especially whether a choice changes "one useful strategy" into "the only effective strategy."
W3.4: Respond from Text 1 to Text 2
TEXT 1
A theater director argues that a production can preserve a play's central conflict while changing its setting. If the characters still confront the same competing obligations, contemporary costumes and locations need not alter the dramatic problem that gives the work its coherence.
TEXT 2
A critic argues that a recent production, which moved a historical play into a modern office, could not have preserved its central conflict. For the critic, changing the setting necessarily changes that conflict, regardless of how faithfully a production retains the characters' competing obligations.
How would the director in Text 1 most likely respond to the critic's claim about the recent production?
A. By agreeing that the production could preserve its conflict only through historically accurate costumes
B. By arguing that modern office settings make competing obligations easier for audiences to understand
C. By accepting the claim because a production's coherence depends on preserving every feature of its setting
D. By questioning whether the change of setting alone establishes that the central conflict was altered
Practice this lesson: 3.10, 3.20.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.4
Answer: D
- The requested speaker is the director in Text 1. The target is the critic's necessary link between changing setting and changing conflict.
- The director allows a setting change without a conflict change when competing obligations remain.
- D challenges the critic's inference. It does not pretend the director has inspected this particular production.
Why A fails: The director explicitly allows contemporary costumes; historical accuracy is not a stated requirement.
Why B fails: Text 1 does not claim that contemporary settings improve audience understanding.
Why C fails: The director identifies competing obligations, not every setting feature, as the relevant continuity.
Key takeaway: Use the responding text to test the target claim; do not invent facts about a particular case.
3.5 Distinguish qualification, refutation, and a request for evidence
Authors can oppose different parts of an argument. One may accept a result but limit its scope. Another may present incompatible evidence. A third may withhold judgment because the method cannot distinguish competing explanations. These are different responses. Trace the chain: evidence, interpretation, conclusion, extension. Find the link under examination.
Words such as "however" announce a turn but do not specify how much changes. "However, the benefit appeared only in shallow water" narrows a finding; it does not erase that finding. Likewise, proposing a further test need not mean expecting the original claim to fail. When a choice says that one author refutes the other, verify that the responding text actually supplies a basis for rejection rather than merely a reason for caution.
Response | What it commits the author to |
|---|---|
Qualification | The claim needs a restriction, condition, or narrower scope. |
Refutation | A basis for rejecting the targeted claim. |
Evidentiary caution | The available evidence does not settle the claim. |
W3.5: A limit is not a reversal
TEXT 1
A crop scientist reports that a reflective ground covering lowered leaf temperatures in young orchard trees during a week of intense sunshine. Because heat can impair young trees' growth, she argues that the covering could help protect newly planted orchards during hot, sunny periods.
TEXT 2
A second scientist finds the reported cooling promising but notes that the study did not measure long-term growth. Lower leaf temperatures may benefit young trees, yet the size of any growth benefit could depend on water availability and other conditions. She recommends longer trials before estimating that benefit.
Which choice best describes how Text 2 relates to Text 1?
A. It presents evidence that the covering increased heat stress under the reported conditions.
B. It accepts the cooling finding while cautioning against a firm estimate of its longer-term benefit.
C. It attributes the observed cooling to differences in water availability between the trees.
D. It agrees that the covering improves long-term growth but disputes how that growth should be measured.
Practice this lesson: 3.11, 3.21.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.5
Answer: B
- Identify what was measured: leaf temperature, not long-term growth. Text 1 uses the result to suggest a possible protective benefit.
- Text 2 calls cooling promising and retains the possibility of a benefit. Its caution concerns estimating longer-term growth.
- B preserves that qualified relationship without manufacturing contradictory results.
Why A fails: No increased heat stress is reported in Text 2.
Why C fails: Water availability is a possible condition affecting growth, not the given explanation for the cooling.
Why D fails: Text 2 does not accept an established growth improvement or dispute a measurement method.
Key takeaway: Locate precisely what is accepted and precisely what remains uncertain.
3.6 Separate a shared observation from competing explanations
A common pair presents the same result and two possible causes. Make two notes for each text: "What happened?" and "Why, according to this author?" Without this separation, it is easy to mistake a shared observation for agreement about a mechanism. Conversely, different explanations do not necessarily conflict: both causes could contribute unless a text makes them exclusive.
Check what kind of support each explanation has. An author may describe a mechanism that could produce the result without showing that it did produce the result. If the question asks about the relationship, report that level of commitment faithfully. If it asks how one author would respond, connect the response to the proposed mechanism rather than to an unrelated detail both texts happen to mention.
W3.6: Same attendance pattern, different causes
TEXT 1
A town librarian notes that attendance rose after the library moved its public lectures from weekday afternoons to weekday evenings. She attributes the increase primarily to the new timing: residents with daytime jobs could now attend events that had previously been inaccessible to them.
TEXT 2
A community researcher agrees that attendance rose but notes that the library also began advertising the lectures through local workplaces. In her view, the advertising, rather than the timing change, was the main reason for the increase, although the available attendance totals cannot isolate either factor's contribution.
Which choice best describes the relationship between the texts?
A. They report conflicting attendance trends but propose the same explanation for each trend.
B. They agree on the main cause of increased attendance but differ about how to publicize future lectures.
C. They accept the same attendance change but favor different explanations for its principal cause.
D. They describe independent effects of timing and advertising that the attendance totals conclusively separate.
Practice this lesson: 3.12, 3.22.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.6
Answer: C
- Both texts accept the rise in attendance. Neither contests the direction of the reported change.
- The librarian favors timing; the researcher favors advertising. Both use language about the main or primary cause.
- C states the shared result and disputed principal explanation. The final caveat prevents claiming the totals resolve the issue.
Why A fails: The attendance trends agree, and the favored explanations differ.
Why B fails: Text 2 does not make a recommendation about future publicity; it interprets the past increase.
Why D fails: Text 2 explicitly says the totals cannot isolate the factors' contributions.
Key takeaway: Different causal accounts can share the same observations and still remain untested against one another.
3.7 Check conditions before declaring a contradiction
Findings can differ because the studies differ. Compare the population, setting, duration, treatment, and outcome actually measured. "Improved immediate recall" and "did not improve recall a month later" are compatible findings. So are an effect among novices and no effect among experts. A genuine contradiction requires incompatible claims about sufficiently comparable circumstances.
Do not invent a reconciliation merely because one would be convenient. The texts must identify the relevant difference or support the proposed limitation. If a question asks what one study suggests about another, use the stated condition to narrow the interpretation. A result from one group may reveal a boundary; it does not automatically explain the mechanism behind that boundary or predict every untested group's performance.
Compare | A difference that can matter |
|---|---|
Population | Novices versus experienced participants |
Outcome | Immediate performance versus later retention |
Conditions | Quiet versus noisy settings |
Claim strength | A benefit in one setting versus a universal benefit |
W3.7: Different experience levels
TEXT 1
An instructor found that novices learning a weaving pattern made fewer errors when given a diagram along with written directions than when given the directions alone. She concludes that adding a diagram can help learners who have little experience interpreting the pattern's written notation.
TEXT 2
A second instructor tested experienced weavers using the same pattern and materials. Adding the diagram did not reduce their errors compared with written directions alone. He suggests that these weavers' familiarity with the notation may have reduced their need for the additional visual support.
How would the second instructor most likely respond to the first instructor's conclusion?
A. By arguing that the novices' improvement establishes a benefit for weavers at every experience level
B. By proposing that the novices received a simpler pattern than the experienced weavers did
C. By concluding that diagrams distract learners who already understand written notation
D. By noting that his finding concerns a different experience level and therefore need not conflict with her conclusion
Practice this lesson: 3.13, 3.23.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.7
Answer: D
- Text 1 limits its conclusion to learners with little notation experience. It does not generalize to all weavers.
- Text 2 reports no added benefit for experienced weavers using the same task. A difference in experience is explicitly stated.
- D respects both scopes. The no-benefit result neither denies the novice benefit nor establishes harm.
Why A fails: Neither text supports a benefit at every experience level.
Why B fails: Text 2 says the pattern and materials were the same.
Why C fails: No reduction in errors is not evidence that diagrams distracted or harmed experienced learners.
Key takeaway: Compare like with like before treating two reported results as incompatible.
3.8 Connect a general principle to a particular case
Not every pair stages a debate. One text may present a principle and the other an example, application, extension, or boundary case. The connection must involve the principle's defining relationship. If Text 1 says variation can improve resilience, a story about varied designs is not enough; Text 2 must connect that variation to resilience in some relevant way.
Distinguish illustration from proof. A particular case can exemplify a general account without establishing that it applies everywhere. An extension adds a setting, implication, or category beyond the first text's discussion. A qualification identifies a limit. Before choosing a relationship label, finish the sentence "This case shows the principle because ..." using details supplied by both texts.
W3.8: An instance of a stated principle
TEXT 1
A landscape designer argues that a system can be resilient when its components respond differently to stress. If all components fail under the same condition, one disturbance can disable the entire system. Varied responses can allow some functions to continue while other components recover.
TEXT 2
A coastal town planted several tree species along its streets. After an unusually salty storm, one species lost most of its leaves, but two others retained their foliage. Those surviving canopies continued to shade sidewalks while the damaged trees gradually recovered.
Which choice best describes how Text 2 relates to Text 1?
A. It illustrates how different responses to a disturbance can preserve a system's useful function.
B. It shows that resilient systems avoid damage to each of their individual components.
C. It extends the designer's principle by showing that recovery requires repeated disturbances.
D. It challenges the principle by showing that some tree species are vulnerable to salty storms.
Practice this lesson: 3.14, 3.24.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.8
Answer: A
- Identify the general relationship in Text 1: varied responses to stress can preserve functions despite partial failure.
- Match the case: one species loses foliage, others retain it, and sidewalk shading continues.
- A captures all parts of that match. The damaged trees are consistent with resilience of the larger system.
Why B fails: Text 1 permits component failure, and Text 2 explicitly describes damaged trees.
Why C fails: The case does not show repeated disturbances or make them necessary for recovery.
Why D fails: A vulnerable component does not challenge the principle; different vulnerabilities help illustrate it.
Key takeaway: Match a principle's relationship, not just its vocabulary, to the details of a case.
3.9 Preserve attribution in complex and literary pairs
A text can quote a view that its author rejects. Record whose claim it is before comparing it with the other text. "Critics call the style careless, but its repetitions are carefully placed" does not make the author a critic of the style. In response questions, the named author's stance controls unless the question explicitly targets another person's view.
Literary pairs require the same discipline. A speaker's observation, a narrator's description, and a character's belief are not interchangeable. Avoid turning a small gesture into a complete psychological diagnosis. A supportable connection may concern how both passages present memory, change, work, or belonging. State that connection at the degree the actual language supports, preserving a meaningful difference when the question asks for one.
W3.9: The cited view is not the author's view
TEXT 1
Some reviewers describe a poet's repeated images of mending as expressions of nostalgia for an orderly past. Yet the poems repeatedly show repaired objects being adapted for unfamiliar uses. Rather than simply recovering an earlier order, the poems portray continuity as something made through change.
TEXT 2
A second critic argues that the poet's work resists a strict opposition between preservation and invention. In one poem, a worn sail becomes a child's raincoat: the object's history remains visible even as its purpose changes. Such transformations preserve a connection to the past without recreating it.
Based on the texts, the two authors would most likely agree that the poet's work
A. presents adaptation as valuable chiefly because it restores objects' original purposes.
B. contrasts the reliability of past traditions with the instability of unfamiliar uses.
C. portrays a continuing relationship with the past that can include transformation.
D. supports the reviewers' view that mending expresses a wish to recover an earlier order.
Practice this lesson: 3.15, 3.25.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.9
Answer: C
- In Text 1, the nostalgia account belongs to "some reviewers." The author's "Yet" introduces a different interpretation.
- Text 1 connects continuity with change. Text 2 connects visible history with a changed purpose.
- C states their shared interpretation without attributing the reviewers' rejected claim to the first author.
Why A fails: Both texts emphasize new uses, not restoration of original purposes.
Why B fails: Neither author ranks past traditions as reliable and unfamiliar uses as unstable.
Why D fails: The first author disputes the reviewers' account, and Text 2 likewise rejects simple recreation.
Key takeaway: Attach each claim to its speaker before attaching one text to another.
3.10 Verify close choices through both texts
On difficult questions, several choices may sound compatible with the topic. Break each serious candidate into its separate claims. Test the subject, relationship, degree, condition, and attribution against both texts. One unsupported clause can disqualify an otherwise attractive answer. A correct answer may acknowledge partial agreement while identifying a specific limit; its value comes from fit, not from sounding balanced.
Use a compact final check: "Text 1 supports ___; Text 2 supports ___." If either blank can be filled only with outside knowledge or speculation, reconsider. Do not prefer a qualified answer merely because it is cautious: it can still make the wrong qualification. Nor must you reread everything. Return to the exact sentence that resolves the remaining difference between the two strongest choices.
W3.10: Accepting a benefit, limiting the conclusion
TEXT 1
A music teacher reports that students using slow practice recordings made fewer timing errors during an initial rehearsal than students practicing without recordings. She suggests that recordings can support early coordination, while noting that her observation does not show whether students later perform independently with equal accuracy.
TEXT 2
A researcher agrees that recordings can provide useful timing support during early practice. He argues, however, that evaluating their instructional value also requires testing students after that support is removed. A successful rehearsal with a recording does not by itself demonstrate independent control of timing.
How would the teacher in Text 1 most likely respond to the researcher's argument?
A. By agreeing that independent performance remains untested while maintaining that the observed rehearsal benefit is meaningful
B. By accepting the need for further testing because the initial rehearsal showed no measurable benefit
C. By rejecting the proposed test because independent timing is unrelated to the value of early coordination
D. By agreeing that recordings impair independent timing despite helping students during initial rehearsals
Practice this lesson: 3.16, 3.26.
Show worked solutionHide worked solution for W3.10
Answer: A
- The response must come from the teacher. She reports an initial benefit and explicitly leaves later independence unresolved.
- The researcher accepts early support but requests a test after support is removed. That request addresses the teacher's stated limit.
- A preserves both commitments. It neither discards the benefit nor converts an unanswered question into evidence of later harm.
Why B fails: The teacher reports fewer errors, so a measurable initial benefit is present.
Why C fails: The teacher explicitly raises later independent performance as an unresolved issue.
Why D fails: Neither text establishes impairment after the recording is removed.
Key takeaway: When two authors share a limitation, do not invent disagreement merely because one uses "however."
Independent practice
Keep these checks in mind
- State each text's claim separately, preserving who holds the view and how strongly it is asserted.
- Identify the requested relationship and, for response questions, the responding author and target claim.
- Separate shared observations from explanations, recommendations, and extensions beyond the evidence.
- Compare populations, conditions, measures, and time frames before declaring findings incompatible.
- Prove the chosen answer through both texts; reject unsupported clauses even when the rest of a choice fits.
Begin with six brief reasoning drills, then complete twenty multiple-choice questions. Later items generally require closer distinctions. For every answer, identify the decisive evidence and the flaw in the nearest competitor.
These six written drills are ungraded. Write your reasoning before opening each model answer.
Drill 3.01
TEXT 1
A planner favors adding benches to a steep walking route because some residents need places to rest.
TEXT 2
A resident supports benches but argues that improved lighting is also needed for people who use the route after sunset.
Write one short position summary for each text and name their relationship.
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.01
Separate position summaries | Review lesson 3.1
Answer: Text 1: benches can help residents rest. Text 2: benches are useful, and lighting also matters. Text 2 adds a requirement without rejecting the first recommendation.
The shared support for benches comes from "favors" and "supports." The second text adds a need for a different condition: walking after sunset.
If you missed it: Keep the shared recommendation when stating the added concern.
Drill 3.02
TEXT 1
A botanist reports that seedlings under a screen grew taller and attributes the difference to reduced wind.
TEXT 2
Another botanist accepts the height difference but notes that the screen also reduced sunlight, which could have affected growth.
State one claim both botanists accept and one issue they have not settled.
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.02
Shared proposition | Review lesson 3.2
Answer: Both accept that seedlings under the screen grew taller. The texts do not settle which environmental change produced the difference.
Text 2 accepts the observation while adding a competing causal possibility. Agreement on the measured result does not establish agreement on its cause.
If you missed it: Write the observation separately from each explanation.
Review lesson: 3.2 Find agreement at the level of a proposition
Drill 3.03
TEXT 1
A historian claims that matching handwriting proves two unsigned letters were written by the same person.
TEXT 2
A second historian notes that pupils trained by one instructor sometimes developed very similar handwriting; handwriting alone cannot settle authorship.
Does Text 2 establish that different people wrote the letters? Explain in one sentence.
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.03
Evidence versus historical conclusion | Review lesson 3.3
Answer: No. Text 2 challenges whether matching handwriting is sufficient to establish common authorship; it does not establish different authorship.
The alternative source of similarity weakens the inference from handwriting to author identity. It leaves both common and different authorship possible.
If you missed it: Replace "proves false" with "does not establish" when the evidence only limits an inference.
Drill 3.04
TEXT 1
A composer argues that performing an old work with electronic instruments can preserve its important rhythmic relationships.
TEXT 2
A critic claims that changing any instrument necessarily destroys those relationships.
In a response from the composer to the critic, identify the claim to challenge.
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.04
Response direction | Review lesson 3.4
Answer: The composer would challenge the claim that changing any instrument necessarily destroys the rhythmic relationships.
Text 1 explicitly allows preservation despite changed instruments. Its response concerns the necessary relationship asserted in Text 2, not whether every electronic performance succeeds.
If you missed it: Circle the responding author and underline the precise target claim.
Review lesson: 3.4 Answer response questions in the requested direction
Drill 3.05
TEXT 1
A reading tutor found that brief spoken prompts improved beginners' accuracy while they practiced unfamiliar words.
TEXT 2
Another tutor found no improvement from the same prompts when fluent readers practiced familiar words.
Name two differences that prevent these findings from being a direct contradiction.
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.05
Compatible findings under different conditions | Review lesson 3.7
Answer: The readers differ in fluency, and the words differ in familiarity.
Text 1 concerns beginners and unfamiliar words; Text 2 concerns fluent readers and familiar words. Neither finding states what happens under the other study's combined conditions.
If you missed it: Compare the population and task before comparing the outcomes.
Review lesson: 3.7 Check conditions before declaring a contradiction
Drill 3.06
TEXT 1
Some critics call a novelist's abrupt ending incomplete. Yet the final scene resolves the central decision while leaving its consequences open.
TEXT 2
A second critic argues that an ending can complete a character's choice without narrating every later consequence.
Which view in Text 1 belongs to the author, and how does it connect to Text 2?
Write a brief answer and identify the words that justify it.
Show model answerHide model answer for drill 3.06
Author stance and cited stance | Review lesson 3.9
Answer: The author argues that the ending resolves the decision despite leaving consequences open. This agrees with Text 2's distinction between completing a choice and narrating its aftermath.
"Some critics" introduces the cited objection; "Yet" introduces the author's response. Both authors distinguish the central decision from its later consequences.
If you missed it: Track who owns each claim before comparing the texts.
Review lesson: 3.9 Preserve attribution in complex and literary pairs