Cross-text connections — Worked example

- [Instructor] I'm looking at this question and a strategy has already bubbled up in my devious little brain. But if you're feeling like, "I didn't ask for your advice, old man," then fine, whatever. A little harsh, but be my guest. Pause this video and give it a spin. All right, now let's do it together. So before I even read anything pertaining to this question, I notice that there's two passages here, text one and text two, which means I already have some feelings about what kind of question this is going to be, but let's pop down here to the question stem to make sure. Based on the texts, how would the author of text two most likely respond to the claim in the underlined sentence of text one? So we're trying to make a connection between two texts. Perchance might this be a cross-text connections question? Why indeed it might, forsooth. These are tough ones and not just because the word "texts" is a surprisingly tongue-twistery English word. You're not just being asked to figure out how two different texts relate to one another. You're also being asked to extrapolate what the author of one text might say about the other, and that's tough. You need to really understand what each text is saying. You need to understand each author's point of view. But we have the tools to tackle these questions. Let's assemble a strategy. So these questions are meatier than some of the others in the reading and writing test because they necessarily have two passages for each question, but you needn't fear them. The first thing we'll do is cover the choices. We don't want them distracting us as we get our heads around what is being claimed in the passages. Then we'll read and summarize each text in order to identify their points of view. We wanna see how the texts interact with each other. They're going to be related in some way, but how? Then it can be helpful to say in your own words what the relationship between the texts is. Make a prediction about that relationship. In this question, we're supposed to surmise how the author of the second passage might react to a specific claim in the first passage, so that's what we'll do. We'll make a prediction and then test that prediction against the choices. Let's go back to the question and try this out. So I'm going to cover up the question so we can make our prediction without influence. And first things first, let's read the passages. Text one. "In the 1980s, Japanese real estate experienced one of the most remarkable price bubbles in history. Prices became so high that the parkland around Tokyo's Imperial Palace was estimated to be more valuable than all land in California combined." Okay, and I know I'm supposed to pay particular attention to the underlined part. "The cause was simple. The Japanese government kept interest rates on loans too low, nearly eliminating the risk of borrowing money to purchase property, and thereby encouraging a mad rush of buyers chasing a limited amount of real estate." Okay, so we know from this passage that Japan had an incredible real estate price bubble in the '80s and the author blames that on low interest rates. So I'm going to summarize this passage as, "low int rates leads to a bubble." Okay, let's read the second one. Text two. "While interest rate policy played an important role in the Japanese real estate bubble, so did the tax system. The tax on owning real estate was relatively low, whereas the tax on real estate transactions was very high. This caused people to hold on to real estate rather than sell it, and when they did sell, to do so at extremely high prices, so that they could still make a profit after paying the transaction tax." Okay, so this passage identifies two factors. Look for transitions. We've got the word "so" here in the second line, in this first sentence. "So did the tax system." It wasn't just interest rates, this person argues, it was also taxes. I think this person would argue that both factors caused the bubble. So I'm gonna put "int rate and tax system leads to bubble." And so if the question is, how would the author of Text two most likely respond to the underlined claim in text one, we kind of already have that answer in text two, which is it wasn't just interest rates, it was interest rates and taxes. So my prediction is gonna be both of them. Let's reveal the choices and see if anything matches that prediction. Right, choice A. How would the author of text two respond? Choice A, "By claiming that the author of Text one is right about why the bubble occurred but overstates the consequence of the bubble." This introduces new information, which we don't want. There's no mention of the consequences of the bubble in text two, cross it off. Okay, the author of Text two would respond to the claim in text one by choice B, "Arguing that the author of Text one correctly identifies a significant factor in the bubble, but neglects another important factor." Yes, I think this is it. Identifies a significant factor, interest rates, but neglects another important factor, taxes. This is my "both of them" prediction right here. So on test day, I'd circle this answer and move on, but let's check out the other two. I'll put a little check mark here, 'cause I think it's the answer. Choice C, "By pointing out that there is little evidence to support the idea that the factor identified by the author of text one played a part in the bubble." Now, text two does not do this. In fact, it does the opposite. It says interest rate policy played an important role in the bubble. So cross this one off. Choice D, "By asserting that the author of text one has conflated the cause of the bubble with an effect of the bubble." Okay, so you might not know what the word "conflate" means, but don't fall under the spell of a word you don't know. We have a super strong match for our prediction in choice B. Word to the wise, don't select a choice you don't quite understand unless none of the other choices matches your prediction. So even without knowing the meaning of the word "conflate," you could get this right and just go with B based on the strength of its match. Incidentally, "conflate" means to blend ideas together, usually mistakenly, and so this choice is wrong because passage one doesn't conflate or make the mistake of combining the cause with the effect. So I can cross this off and circle B. Let's be clear, we got this question right because we saw that passage two said there were two reasons for the bubble, and passage one said there was one. That was the key to getting this question right. It doesn't matter at all if you don't know the meaning of the word "conflate," or know anything about tax policy or interest rates. Let's talk through some top tips for approaching this question type. First, look for tone. As you read, keep an eye out for words that indicate a positive, negative, or even neutral tone on the part of the author. If you can take a quick temperature check of each passage, it makes them easier to compare. In this example, the tones matched. Sometimes though, noticing the contrast in tones can be the key to getting the question right. Second, be strict and stick to the text. If you see choices that introduce information that isn't included in the text, you can safely knock those choices out. Third and finally, trust your prediction. Don't let fancy choices shake your confidence if you've already found another choice that matches your prediction. Good luck out there. test takers. You've got this.