The rarest Reading and Writing type (3.4% of the bank), and the only one with two passages. Covers summarising each author's position in a few words before reading any choice, locating the exact point of disagreement, answering what Text 2's author would say about Text 1's specific claim rather than about their own topic, and mapping the four possible relationships between two texts — with six worked examples, four traps and three checks.
Subject: SAT Prep · 61 slides · applied lesson
Open the interactive version of this deck
Title
SAT Reading & Writing · Type 10 of 10
3.4% of the question bank — 58 of 1688 questions
Objectives
Two short texts, labelled Text 1 and Text 2, and a question about how one author would respond to the other. The two usually agree about a great deal and differ about one specific thing, and every question is about that one thing. Finding it before reading the choices is the whole method.
One instruction carries the type: find the point of contact before you read a single choice.
Naruhodo Tutoring — SAT Reading and Writing question bank export (sat-english-question-index.json) — 58 tagged questions of this type in the site's bank
Section
Section 1
Concept
Two short texts, labelled Text 1 and Text 2, and a question about how one author would respond to the other. The two usually agree about a great deal and differ about one specific thing, and every question is about that one thing. Finding it before reading the choices is the whole method.
You will see it phrased in these ways:
All three are asking about the relationship between the two positions, which means both must be summarised before any choice is read.
Picture it
The same three-panel card as the survey deck, so the shorthand carries over: what identifies it, what you write first, and what is built to catch you.
Figure (svg): Cross-text Connections: the tell, the move, and the trap
The red panel names the failure that costs most of these questions. A choice can accurately state Text 2's own view and never engage with Text 1 at all.
Prediction
Not what either text says on its own.
Predict first
A question asks how Text 2's author would respond to Text 1. What must the answer do?
Correct: Address Text 1's specific claim from Text 2's position
Why: A response question asks what one author would say ABOUT the other's claim, so the answer must engage both texts. Accurately summarising either text alone is exactly the trap: such a choice is true and never makes contact with the other passage. And describing what they share answers an agreement question rather than a response question.
Concept
Three questions, all about the relationship.
| variant | what it asks | what to find first |
|---|---|---|
| Response | how one author would answer the other | the exact point of disagreement |
| Agreement | what both authors would accept | the common ground they share |
| Relationship | how Text 2 relates to Text 1 | whether it opposes, extends, qualifies or illustrates |
The response variant is the most common and the most error-prone, because it requires holding two positions at once rather than one.
Definition probe
Two texts can stand in a small number of relations.
Sort into buckets
What is Text 2 doing to Text 1 in each case?
Discrimination
Text 1 argues that the species is declining. Text 2 argues the survey method undercounts.
Sort into buckets
Does each statement engage Text 1's claim?
Warm-up
Summarise both before reading anything else.
Discussion prompt
Text 1 argues that a decline in bee populations is caused by pesticide use. Text 2 argues that habitat loss explains the same decline. What do they agree about, and what is the point of disagreement?
Hint: They agree about more than they disagree about.
Answer:
They agree that bee populations are declining. Both take the decline as established.
They disagree about the CAUSE: pesticides against habitat loss.
So the point of contact is causation, not the existence of the decline.
What this means for a response question: Text 2's author would not dispute that bees are declining. They would dispute the explanation.
A choice having Text 2's author deny the decline would misread the disagreement entirely — which is a common distractor.
Pattern
Three steps, and the choices stay covered for the first two.
Summarise Text 1's position in a few words, then Text 2's.
Why: Two short summaries make the comparison possible. Trying to hold both passages in full is what makes this type feel hard.
Write down what they AGREE about and the one thing they differ on.
Why: The two usually share most of the subject matter, and the question is always about the difference.
Uncover the choices and find the one addressing that specific difference from the right author's position.
Why: A choice engaging neither text or only one is the standard distractor.
Step 2 is the one students skip. Naming the common ground is what makes the disagreement visible and precise.
Section
Section 2
Concept
Cross-text pairs share a subject and differ on one specific point.
Writing down the common ground first is what makes the disagreement precise rather than vague.
Concept
A response answer says something about Text 1's claim, from Text 2's position.
Ask of every choice: does this make contact with the OTHER text? If not, reject it however accurate it is.
Prediction
They agree about more than they dispute.
Predict first
Text 1 says a manuscript is a twelfth-century original. Text 2 says it is a later copy of a twelfth-century original. What do they agree about?
Correct: That a twelfth-century original existed
Why: Both authors accept that a twelfth-century original existed; they disagree about whether THIS manuscript is that original or a later copy of it. The second and third choices each state one author's position rather than the shared ground. And they agree about a good deal, so nothing at all is wrong.
Concept
Text 2 usually opposes, extends, qualifies or illustrates Text 1.
| relationship | what Text 2 does | what its author would say |
|---|---|---|
| Opposes | reaches a contrary conclusion | Text 1's conclusion is mistaken |
| Extends | agrees and adds | Text 1 is right, and there is more |
| Qualifies | agrees within limits | Text 1 holds, but not everywhere |
| Illustrates | supplies a concrete case | here is an instance of Text 1's claim |
A qualifying text still accepts the claim. Its author would not say Text 1 is wrong, only that it does not apply everywhere.
Prediction
A response must make contact.
Predict first
Text 1 claims a policy reduced crime. Text 2 argues crime was already falling before the policy. Which is a genuine response to Text 1?
Correct: The reduction Text 1 attributes to the policy was already under way
Why: Only the first mentions Text 1's claim and says something about it. The other three are all plausible things Text 2's author might believe, and none of them engages Text 1's attribution of the fall to the policy. Accurate statements of one's own view are the standard distractor here.
Concept
The two authors typically accept the same evidence and read it differently.
Locating whether the dispute is about facts or about their interpretation sharpens the point of contact considerably.
Concept
What both authors accept is usually the background rather than either conclusion.
This makes agreement questions easier than they look: eliminate both conclusions and the shared premise is usually what remains.
Prediction
Partial agreement changes the response.
Predict first
Text 2 accepts Text 1's finding for adults but argues it does not hold for children. How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1?
Correct: The finding is correct but its scope is narrower than Text 1 suggests
Why: A qualifying text accepts the finding and limits where it applies, so its author would not call it mistaken. The second choice overstates the disagreement into rejection. The third invents a criticism of method the text never made. And the fourth states the opposite of Text 2's position.
Concept
What matters is what Text 2's author believes about the disputed point, not everything they discuss.
Summarising the position in a few words does this filtering automatically, which is why the summary step comes first.
Concept
How Text 2 responds to Text 1 is a different question from how Text 1 responds to Text 2.
Circle which author is speaking before reading any choice. It takes a second and the reversed version is always offered.
Prediction
Which author is speaking?
Predict first
Text 1 argues X; Text 2 argues not-X. A question asks how Text 1's author would respond to Text 2. The answer must
Correct: defend X against Text 2's objection
Why: Text 1's author holds X, so responding to Text 2 means defending that position or answering the objection. The second choice has Text 1's author agreeing with their opponent. The third summarises rather than responds. And finding common ground is what an agreement question asks for, not a response question.
Two truths and a lie
Three of these statements about cross-text questions are correct. The one left standing is false.
Eliminate the wrong options
Which statement is FALSE?
Survives elimination: c
Why: A qualifying text ACCEPTS the conclusion and limits where it applies. Text 2 saying a finding holds for adults but not children is agreeing that it holds — for adults. Its author would not say Text 1 is mistaken, only that the claim was stated too broadly. Confusing qualification with rejection produces an answer that overstates the disagreement, and the overstated version is regularly offered.
Check
Summarise both, then find the contact.
Check your understanding
Text 1 argues that a rise in a bird's population reflects successful conservation. Text 2 shows the rise coincides with a change in survey method that counts more birds. How would Text 2's author most likely respond to Text 1?
Answer: A
Why: Text 2's evidence bears directly on Text 1's claim: if the method changed, the apparent rise may be an artefact rather than a conservation success. That engages both texts.
Choice B is the signature distractor: an accurate statement of Text 2's own view that makes no contact with Text 1.
Section
Section 3
Worked example
Text 1 argues that bee decline is caused by pesticides. Text 2 argues it is caused by habitat loss. How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1?
Figure (svg): Two texts agreeing on the decline and disagreeing on its cause
Summarise each: Text 1 blames pesticides, Text 2 blames habitat loss.
Why: Two short summaries make the comparison manageable.
Name the agreement: both accept that the decline is real.
Why: Naming the common ground makes the disagreement precise.
The point of contact is the CAUSE, so the response addresses the pesticide explanation.
Why: Text 2's author would argue that pesticides are not the primary driver.
The over-strong distractor here has Text 2's author denying the decline. Both authors accept it, so that misreads the disagreement entirely.
Verify: check that a response denying the decline would be wrong: Text 2 accepts it.
Why: Confirming the shared ground rules out an over-strong response.
Answer: by arguing that habitat loss, rather than pesticides, accounts for the decline
Worked example
Text 1 claims a policy reduced crime. Text 2 shows the fall began three years earlier. Which response engages Text 1?
Figure (svg): One engaging response and two statements that make no contact
Identify Text 1's claim precisely: the policy caused the fall.
Why: A response must address this specific attribution.
Identify Text 2's evidence: the fall began before the policy.
Why: That timing is what bears on the attribution.
The response connects them: the fall predated the policy, so the policy cannot be its cause.
Why: Both texts are engaged, which is what a response requires.
Both rejected choices are things Text 2's author might well believe. Believing something is not responding to anything.
Verify: test the rejected choices: neither mentions the policy or the attribution.
Why: A choice that never refers to the other text cannot be a response to it.
Answer: by pointing out that the decline began before the policy took effect
Worked example
Text 1 argues that a teaching method improves outcomes. Text 2 finds it works for older students but not younger ones. How would Text 2's author respond?
Figure (svg): A general claim narrowed rather than rejected
Note that Text 2 confirms the method works — for one group.
Why: That confirmation is what makes this qualification rather than opposition.
Text 2's objection is to the SCOPE of the claim, not to its truth.
Why: The finding holds; it was stated too broadly.
So the response accepts the finding and narrows it.
Why: Text 2's author would not call Text 1 mistaken.
Qualification and opposition are the pair most often confused. Ask whether the other text's claim survives in narrowed form.
Verify: check the over-strong version: the method does not work. Text 2 contradicts that for older students.
Why: Text 2's own evidence rules out the stronger response.
Answer: by accepting the finding for older students while limiting its scope
Step zero
Before reading a single choice.
Discussion prompt
You reach a cross-text question with two passages. What do you write down first, and why does it have to come before the choices?
Hint: Two short things and one comparison.
Answer:
Write Text 1's position in a few words, then Text 2's.
Then write what they AGREE about and the one point they differ on.
Why before the choices: each choice is a plausible statement about one of the texts, and reading them first makes you evaluate them individually rather than against the disagreement.
The summaries also make the task manageable. Holding two passages in full is what makes this type feel harder than it is; holding two short positions is easy.
And naming the common ground is what makes the disagreement precise — without it, you will accept a response that overstates the conflict.
Worked example
Text 1 attributes a species' spread to warming; Text 2 attributes it to reduced predation. Based on both texts, what would the authors agree on?
Figure (svg): Two competing explanations of one accepted phenomenon
Note that the two conclusions differ, so neither can be the shared ground.
Why: Agreement questions are never answered by either author's conclusion.
Look at what both take for granted: that the species has expanded its range.
Why: The shared premise is usually the phenomenon being explained.
So the agreement is on the fact of the spread, not on its cause.
Why: Both explanations presuppose the spread occurred.
Eliminating both conclusions is a reliable first move on agreement questions. What remains is usually the shared premise.
Verify: test each conclusion as a candidate: each is denied by the other author.
Why: Anything one author denies cannot be common ground.
Answer: that the species has expanded its range
Worked example
Text 1 argues the artefact is ceremonial; Text 2 argues it is a tool. A question asks how TEXT 1's author would respond to Text 2.
Figure (svg): Two competing interpretations with the direction of response marked
Note whose response is wanted: Text 1's author.
Why: The two directions produce different answers.
Text 1's author holds the ceremonial view, so the response defends it.
Why: Responding means answering the objection from one's own position.
The answer will argue against the tool interpretation.
Why: Not for it — that would be Text 2's own position.
The reversed answer is always offered and is entirely coherent. Circling which author is speaking takes a second and prevents it.
Verify: check the reversed version: how Text 2's author would respond would defend the tool reading instead.
Why: The two directions are not symmetrical, which is why the stem specifies.
Answer: by defending the ceremonial interpretation against the tool reading
Faded example
From memory. Three steps and a warning.
Fill in the blanks
Summarise each author's position in a few words. Write down what they agree about and the one point they differ on. Then find the choice addressing that disagreement. And beware the choice that states Text 2's own view without engaging Text 1's claim.
Why: The second blank is the step students skip. Naming the common ground is what makes the disagreement precise, and without it you will accept a response that overstates the conflict — which is the commonest error on the type.
Worked example
Text 1 argues that urban parks improve mental health. Text 2 reports a single city where park expansion produced measurable improvement. How does Text 2 relate to Text 1?
Figure (svg): A general claim and a specific supporting case
Note that Text 2 agrees with Text 1's direction — improvement occurred.
Why: So the relationship is not opposition.
Text 2 is narrower: one city rather than a general claim.
Why: A single case supporting a general claim is an illustration.
So Text 2 provides evidence for Text 1's position.
Why: It supports and exemplifies rather than extending or limiting.
Not every pair disagrees. About a third of these questions involve agreement, illustration or extension, and expecting conflict is itself a source of error.
Verify: check it is not a qualification: Text 2 does not say the claim fails anywhere.
Why: Qualification requires a limit, and Text 2 sets none.
Answer: it provides a specific case supporting Text 1's general claim
Fill the middle
Two texts can stand in a small number of relations.
Fill in the blanks
Text 2 opposes Text 1 when it reaches a contrary conclusion. It extends Text 1 when it agrees and adds more. It qualifies Text 1 when it accepts the claim but limits where it applies. And it illustrates Text 1 when it supplies a concrete case supporting a general claim.
Why: Naming the relationship before reading the choices predicts the shape of the answer. The third is the one most often misread as the first: a text that limits a claim still accepts it, so its author would not call the other mistaken.
Estimation
The relationship tells you what to expect.
Predict first
Text 2 accepts Text 1's finding but limits it to one group. What shape will the correct response have?
Correct: It agrees with the finding and narrows its scope
Why: A qualifying relationship produces a qualifying response: the finding stands, and it applies less widely than Text 1 suggested. Predicting this shape before reading the choices means you can reject the over-strong rejection and the invented methodological criticism immediately, which are the two standard distractors on qualification questions.
Check
Eliminate both conclusions first.
Check your understanding
Text 1 attributes a language's decline to urban migration. Text 2 attributes it to changes in schooling policy. Based on the texts, both authors would most likely agree that
Answer: A
Why: Both authors are explaining the same decline, so both accept that it occurred. The shared ground is the phenomenon being explained rather than either explanation.
Eliminating both conclusions leaves the shared premise, which is the reliable first move on agreement questions.
Section
Section 4
Trap
The trap. A choice accurately states something Text 2's author believes, and you select it.
But it never mentions Text 1's claim, so it is not a response to anything.
It is true, it is well supported by Text 2, and it makes no contact with the other passage.
The fix. Ask of every choice: does this say something about the OTHER text's claim?
A response must engage both texts.
Trap
The trap. Text 2 limits Text 1's finding to certain cases, and you choose a response saying Text 1 is mistaken.
Text 2 accepts the finding — that is why it applies to one group and not another.
The disagreement is about scope, and the choice turned it into a rejection.
The fix. Write down what the two texts AGREE about before deciding how far apart they are.
Most cross-text pairs share a great deal.
Error analysis
A student's answer on a response question. The statement is accurate.
Annotate
On: \( \text{T1: the policy cut crime. T2: crime was already falling.} \;\Rightarrow\; \text{chose: crime data vary by region} \)
This is the signature failure of the type. A choice can be accurate, well supported and about the right passage, and still make no contact with the other one.
Trap
The trap. The stem asks how Text 1's author would respond to Text 2, and you answer as Text 2's author responding to Text 1.
The resulting choice is coherent and well supported, and it answers the other question.
The reversed version is always among the choices for exactly this reason.
The fix. Circle which author is speaking before reading any choice.
Then check the chosen answer defends that author's position.
Elimination
Text 1 argues a manuscript is a twelfth-century original. Text 2 argues the binding technique postdates the parchment by three centuries.
Eliminate the wrong options
How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1? Three choices make no contact.
Survives elimination: a
Why: Only the first says something about Text 1's claim — that the manuscript as it stands cannot be the twelfth-century original, because part of it is three centuries younger. The other three are all statements Text 2's author might endorse, and none refers to Text 1's dating at all. Checking each choice for contact with the other text eliminated three without weighing their content.
Trap
The trap. You approach every cross-text pair looking for conflict, and force a disagreement onto texts that largely agree.
Text 2 may extend Text 1, illustrate it, or supply supporting evidence.
Reading agreement as opposition produces a response the texts do not support.
The fix. Determine the relationship before assuming it.
Opposition is the most common relationship and it is not the only one.
Counterexample
An assumption that shapes how students read these pairs.
Discussion prompt
A student says: in a cross-text pair the two authors always disagree. Give a counterexample.
Hint: Consider a general claim and a specific case.
Answer:
Counterexample: Text 1 argues that urban parks improve mental health, and Text 2 reports one city where park expansion produced measurable improvement.
The two agree entirely. Text 2 supplies a concrete case supporting Text 1's general claim.
A second counterexample: Text 2 accepts Text 1's conclusion and adds a further reason for it — an extension rather than a dispute.
Why the assumption is costly: approaching every pair looking for conflict makes you force a disagreement onto texts that share a position, and choose a response the texts do not support.
The corrected approach: determine the relationship first. Opposition is the most common of the four and it is not the only one.
Edge cases
Find the one disagreement. What if there is more than one?
Discussion prompt
What do you do when the two texts differ on several points, or when the disagreement is hard to locate?
Hint: The stem usually narrows it for you.
Answer:
Read the stem carefully — it usually names the claim being responded to. How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1's assertion that X is the one point that matters.
When several differences exist, the stem selects one. Answer about that one and set the others aside.
If the disagreement is genuinely hard to locate, look at the conclusions rather than the details. Two texts on one subject nearly always differ in what they conclude.
And check whether the difference is about facts or about interpretation. Most cross-text pairs accept the same facts and read them differently, which sharpens the contact point considerably.
A final check: if you cannot state the disagreement in one short sentence, you have not found it yet, and reading the choices will not help.
Check
Does the claim survive in narrowed form?
Check your understanding
Text 1 argues that a drug reduces symptoms. Text 2 finds it effective in patients under sixty but not in older ones. How would Text 2's author respond to Text 1?
Answer: A
Why: Text 2 confirms the drug works for patients under sixty, so its author accepts the finding and limits its scope. That is a qualification rather than a rejection.
Choice B is the over-strong distractor. Asking whether the original claim survives in narrowed form separates qualification from rejection every time.
Section
Section 5
Matching
Four relationships, plus two distractor shapes.
Match the pairs
Why: The last two rows are the two standard distractor shapes on this type, and both are entirely accurate statements. One never engages the other text and one engages it from the wrong side, which is why checking contact and direction are separate steps.
Sorting
Text 1 claims a site was a marketplace. Text 2 argues the finds suggest a religious function.
Sort into buckets
Does each engage Text 1's claim?
Three engage and three do not, which is close to the balance in a real question. The test is simply whether the other text's claim is referred to at all.
Comparison
Fill the blanks from memory.
Comparison matrix
| response | agreement | relationship | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What to find first | the point of disagreement | the shared premise | which of the four relations holds |
| What the answer does | addresses the other text's claim | states what both accept | names how Text 2 stands to Text 1 |
| The signature distractor | one author's own view, engaging nothing | either author's conclusion | opposition where there is qualification |
The agreement row is the most mechanical: since the two conclusions differ, neither can be common ground, so eliminating both usually leaves the answer.
Trade off
Fill in what each step is worth.
Comparison matrix
| step | time | what it buys |
|---|---|---|
| Summarise each text in a few words | about twenty seconds | makes holding two positions manageable |
| Write the common ground | about ten seconds | prevents overstating the disagreement |
| Circle which author is responding | one second | eliminates the reversed-direction choice |
| Re-reading both passages in full | over a minute | very little — the summaries already hold what matters |
The first three cost about half a minute between them and prevent every standard failure. The fourth is what students do instead when they have not summarised, and it is where the time on this type disappears.
Real world
One minute on why locating disagreement precisely matters.
Discussion prompt
Most real disagreements are narrower than they appear. Why does finding the exact point of contact matter?
Answer:
Because most disputes are about one thing and are argued as though they were about everything. Two people agreeing on ninety per cent of the facts can sound entirely opposed.
Locating the actual disagreement makes it addressable. If two researchers accept the same data and differ on interpretation, no amount of further data settles it — the dispute is about the reading.
It also prevents talking past each other, which is what happens when each side restates their own position rather than engaging the other's — exactly the non-response distractor in this deck.
In academic writing this is the whole skill of a literature review: stating what a field agrees on and where the live disputes actually lie.
And it is why the SAT tests it. Reading two sources and saying precisely where they part company is what using sources well requires.
Ranking
Text 1 claims a method improves results. Order Text 2's possible positions from weakest opposition to strongest.
Put in order
Why: The first agrees entirely and illustrates. The second qualifies, accepting the claim within limits. The third withholds judgement without asserting the opposite, which is stronger than qualification and weaker than contradiction. The fourth asserts the contrary conclusion outright. Naming which of these four positions Text 2 occupies predicts the shape of the correct response and eliminates choices that overstate or understate the conflict.
Concept
This type is 3.4 per cent of the section — about two questions — and it is the only one with two passages, so the method matters more than the volume.
| session | what you do | why |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ten pairs, writing each author's position in under ten words before reading anything else. | Makes the comparison manageable and is the step that decides the type. |
| 2 | Ten pairs, writing the common ground and the single point of disagreement. | Prevents overstating the conflict, which is the commonest error. |
| 3 | For fifteen wrong choices, mark whether each engages the other text at all. | Trains recognition of the signature distractor. |
| 4 | Ten pairs where you name the relationship — opposes, extends, qualifies, illustrates — before the choices. | Prevents assuming disagreement where there is none. |
Naruhodo Tutoring — SAT Reading and Writing question bank export (sat-english-question-index.json) — filter the bank to this skill tag — 58 questions, roughly a third of each difficulty
Explain it to yourself
Close the deck.
Discussion prompt
Without looking, describe the routine for a response question and name the two standard distractor shapes.
Hint: Three steps and two traps.
Answer:
Summarise each author's position in a few words.
Write what they agree about and the one point on which they differ.
Find the choice addressing that difference, from the position of the author the stem names.
Distractor one: a choice stating one author's own view without engaging the other text at all. Accurate, and not a response.
Distractor two: a choice answering the reverse direction — what the other author would say. Coherent, and about the wrong question.
Explain it
Two minutes, out loud.
Discussion prompt
A friend finds these questions hard because there is twice as much to read. What do you tell them?
Answer:
Reframe the difficulty. The problem is not the reading volume — both passages are short. The problem is trying to hold both in full.
Give the fix: summarise each in under ten words. Text 1 blames pesticides. Text 2 blames habitat loss. Now both fit in mind at once.
Then the crucial step: write what they AGREE about. Usually most of it — here, that the decline is real.
Explain why that matters: it makes the disagreement precise. Without it you will accept a choice that has one author denying something they actually accept.
And warn them about the main distractor: a choice that accurately states one author's own view and never mentions the other text. It is true, it is well supported, and it responds to nothing.
Commit first
Commit before you check.
Predict first
Text 1 argues a fossil is a new species. Text 2 argues it is a juvenile of a known species. How would Text 2's author respond?
Correct: The features Text 1 treats as distinctive are typical of immature individuals
Why: Only the first engages Text 1's actual claim, explaining why the evidence for a new species does not hold. The other three are all plausible statements Text 2's author might endorse — about misidentification in general, about the dating, and about the genus — and none of them mentions Text 1's identification at all. Checking for contact eliminates three immediately.
Connect it up
Blank paper.
Draw it
Draw two boxes side by side labelled TEXT 1 and TEXT 2, each with room for a one-line summary. Draw a large overlapping region between them labelled WHAT THEY AGREE ABOUT, and a small marked spot where they meet labelled THE POINT OF CONTACT. Beside it write the routine: summarise both, name the common ground, find the one disagreement. Underneath, list the four relationships — opposes, extends, qualifies, illustrates — with what each author would say. In a corner, draw the two distractor shapes: a choice pointing only at Text 2 with no arrow to Text 1, and a choice with its arrow pointing the wrong way. At the bottom: DOES THIS CHOICE MENTION THE OTHER TEXT?
Exit ticket
One question before you close the deck.
Predict first
A choice on a response question accurately states Text 2's view and never mentions Text 1. What is it?
Correct: A distractor — a response must engage the other text
Why: A response says something ABOUT the other author's claim, so a choice that never refers to Text 1 cannot be one however accurately it represents Text 2. This is the signature distractor of the type, and it works precisely because it is true and well supported. Re-reading both passages would not change it — the test is simply whether the choice makes contact.
Recap
One type, one target: find the point of contact before reading a single choice.
| never do this | do this instead |
|---|---|
| Choose a choice that states only one author's view | A response must mention the other text's claim |
| Turn a qualification into a rejection | Ask whether the claim survives in narrowed form |
| Answer the reverse direction | Circle which author the stem names as responding |
| Assume the two texts must disagree | They may extend, illustrate or support |
| Pick either conclusion as common ground | Both are disputed — look for the shared premise |
| Re-read both passages in full | Two short summaries hold everything that matters |
Naruhodo Tutoring — SAT Reading and Writing question bank export (sat-english-question-index.json) — and the site's SAT pages to drill this type in isolation, then mixed
Want this taught 1-on-1? Alexander tutors SAT Prep — $55/session, free consultation.