Cross-Text Connections
Cross-text questions show you two short passages on the same topic and ask how the *second author would respond* to a claim from the first — they reward students who can hold two perspectives in their head at once.
These questions are a debate format. You read Text 1 (one author's claim) and Text 2 (a different author on the same topic). The question is usually one of these:
- "How would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to ____?"
- "On what point would the two authors most likely agree / disagree?"
- "The author of Text 2 would most likely view the claim in Text 1 as ____."
The trick: identify each author's actual stance, then put them in dialogue.
| Text 1 | Text 2 | Relationship | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI translation will transform commerce | AGREE — celebrates it | QUALIFY — useful for routine, not high-stakes | Yes, but |
| Remote work benefits workers overall | AGREE — calls it a win | DISAGREE — burnout outweighs flexibility | Direct disagreement |
| A specific drug is effective | AGREE — based on Trial A | AGREE — based on Trial B (different evidence) | Same conclusion, different evidence |
| Climate change requires action | AGREE — global action needed | AGREE — but only at local level | Different scope (narrowing) |
The technique — three steps:
Step 1. Pin Text 1's claim in your own words. "The first author thinks X because Y."
Step 2. Pin Text 2's claim in your own words. "The second author thinks Z because W."
Step 3. Ask the relationship. Does Text 2 agree (different evidence, same conclusion)? Disagree (opposite conclusion)? Qualify (yes-but)? Sidestep (different angle, doesn't engage)?
Common patterns:
- Direct disagreement. Author 1 says it's good; Author 2 says it's bad. The right answer captures the head-on collision.
- Yes, but. Author 2 partly agrees but sees a complication Author 1 missed. The right answer says "agree with the basic point but raise concern about ____."
- Different evidence, same conclusion. Both think X, but for different reasons. The right answer captures the agreement on conclusion despite divergent paths.
- Different scope. Author 1 talks about all cases; Author 2 says it's only true in some. The right answer captures the narrowing.
Watch the language carefully. Wrong answers often pick a stance neither author actually took, or invert one author's claim. Stay strict: only match what's literally on the page.
Try one. Pin each author's claim in your own words first; then ask whether Text 2 agrees, disagrees, qualifies, or sidesteps Text 1.
Text 1: Economist A argues that raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour would significantly reduce poverty among low-income workers without causing substantial job losses, citing studies from cities that have already implemented such increases.
Text 2: Economist B contends that while modest minimum wage increases can benefit workers, a $15 federal minimum would disproportionately affect small businesses in low-cost-of-living areas, potentially leading to reduced hours and slower hiring.
Based on the texts, how would Economist B most likely respond to Economist A's position?
Worked examples
Text 1: Recent advances in AI translation have made it possible for businesses to operate in dozens of languages without hiring human translators. This will transform global commerce, removing one of the last barriers to international trade.
Text 2: While AI translation handles routine documents well, it struggles with idioms, cultural nuance, and field-specific jargon. Businesses relying solely on AI for high-stakes contracts have already faced costly miscommunications. Human translators remain essential for any text where precision matters.
How would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the claim in Text 1?
Text 1: The rise of remote work has been celebrated as a win for workers, freeing them from long commutes and inflexible office hours.
Text 2: While remote arrangements offer real benefits, they also blur the line between work and home, leading to longer total hours and difficulty disconnecting after-hours. Surveys consistently show remote workers report greater flexibility but experience more burnout than their in-office peers.
On what point would the two authors most likely disagree?
Common pitfalls
Wrong answers often invent a third position — something extreme that neither passage supports. Stay strict: only choose what's literally implied by Text 2's words about Text 1's claim.
If Text 2 acknowledges Text 1 partially but raises a serious concern, the right answer captures BOTH. A choice that only says agree misses the rebuttal; a choice that only says disagree misses the partial yes.
Both authors talking about AI translation doesn't mean they agree about it. Two authors can share a topic and still hold opposite positions. Pin the claims, not the topics.
If Author 2 says AI struggles in high-stakes contexts, don't infer that Author 2 thinks AI is useless. The right answer matches the author's exact scope, not a broader claim you imagine.
Key takeaways
Pin each author's claim in your own words before looking at the choices.
Common author relationships: direct disagreement, yes-but, same conclusion / different evidence, different scope.
Yes, but answers must capture both halves — agreement on the basics + caveat on the limits.
Wrong answers often invent positions neither author held — stay strict.
Two authors sharing a topic does not mean they agree.
Watch & learn
Curated Khan Academy walkthroughs on Cross-Text Connections. They're complementary to this lesson — watch one if a written explanation isn't clicking, or after to reinforce.
Try it yourself
5 practice questions on Cross-Text Connections, drawn from the question bank. The tutor is one click away if you get stuck.