SAT 리딩 기출 유형 7 - Cross-Text Connections - SAT·SSAT 기출 문제 핵심 노트

찰스 온라인 클리닉
SAT 리딩 기출 유형 Cross-Text Connections 문제 세트입니다.
상위권 대비용 두 지문 비교·분석 훈련 자료로, Text 1의 주장에 대해 Text 2가 어떻게 반응(동의·한정·반박)하는지를 파악하는 연습에 집중하세요.
Text 1 핵심 주장 요약 → 밑줄 친 주장 확인 → Text 2의 태도(agree / qualify / challenge) 분석 → 관계를 가장 직접적으로 드러내는 선택지 고르기 순서로 접근하면 정답률을 높일 수 있습니다.

🔗

Table of Contents

SAT 리딩 기출 유형 — Cross-Text Connections (상위권)

Text 1. Growth in the use of novel nanohybrids—materials created from the conjugation of multiple distinct nanomaterials, such as iron oxide and gold nanomaterials combined for use in magnetic imaging—has far outpaced research into their environmental risks. Unfortunately, evaluating risks based only on the known properties of the nanohybrids’ constituent parts is unreliable: conjugation may significantly alter those properties. As a result, even nanomaterials that appear harmless in isolation can, when combined, form a nanohybrid that behaves in unexpected and potentially hazardous ways.
Text 2. The possibility that nanohybrids may pose enhanced toxicity relative to their individual components has received justified scrutiny, yet the effects of conjugation vary case by case. In fact, some studies demonstrate that conjugation can reduce risks: for example, researchers found that a nanohybrid of silicon dioxide and zinc oxide maintained the desired optical transparency of zinc oxide nanoparticles while reducing the DNA damage those nanoparticles might otherwise cause. These findings suggest that while nanohybrids can pose risks, they do not inevitably do so.

1) Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assertion in the underlined portion of Text 1?

A. Deny that nanohybrids could ever be more hazardous than their parts.
B. Agree the concern is valid but stress that conjugation does not always produce hazardous results.
C. Claim that risks exist but are outweighed by the benefits of creating nanohybrids.
D. Argue the example in Text 1 is unrepresentative, though unpredictability remains a challenge.

Text 1. The ancient Greek poet Homer is widely considered the author of two epic poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, recounting the events of the Trojan War and its aftermath. However, some scholars argue that Homer was not a single individual but a collective name for a tradition of oral poets. They point to the lack of historical records about Homer’s life and the contradictions in style and plot across the poems. According to this theory, the Iliad and the Odyssey represent the work of an evolving oral culture, not the singular vision of one writer.
Text 2. Recently, researchers applied statistical methods to analyze linguistic patterns and vocabulary in the Iliad and the Odyssey, comparing them with other ancient Greek texts. The results showed a high degree of consistency between the two epics, while significant differences set them apart from other works of the same era. Based on this, the researchers concluded the epics are most likely the work of a single author—or at least a very close circle of collaborators.

2) How would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the underlined claim in Text 1?

A. Note that contradictions could be explained by later editing.
B. Challenge it with linguistic evidence pointing to a single author or tight-knit group.
C. Criticize it for overlooking evidence that Homer was remembered as a real poet.
D. Accept that the authorship question cannot be resolved with statistics alone.

Text 1 (Festinger). Social psychologist Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that when people experience inconsistency between their beliefs and behaviors, they feel discomfort. To reduce this, they either change their beliefs or rationalize their behavior. For example, a person who values environmental protection but drives a gas-guzzling car might switch to a more eco-friendly vehicle—or justify their choice by focusing on the car’s safety.
Text 2 (Bem). Psychologist Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory challenges the idea that people always begin with clear, stable beliefs. Instead, he argues people often infer their beliefs from their own behavior and its context. For example, someone who volunteers at a charity may not start with strong convictions but may develop a positive attitude after observing themselves helping out.

3) Based on the texts, how would Bem most likely respond to Festinger’s account?

A. By saying dissonance is rare and unimportant.
B. By suggesting experiments varying the degree of inconsistency.
C. By questioning whether beliefs cause behavior or are inferred from it.
D. By limiting dissonance to cases involving moral beliefs.

Text 1. Physicists are puzzled by the one-way flow of time. According to the second law of thermodynamics, processes like heat transfer increase entropy and are irreversible—just as a broken egg cannot be restored. Yet the laws of physics at the microscopic level are time-reversible, raising the question of why entropy dictates an “arrow of time.”
Text 2. In 2015, physicists Tiago Batalhão and colleagues tested this puzzle with carbon-13 atoms in liquid chloroform, using a rapidly oscillating magnetic field. Their experiment confirmed irreversibility even at the quantum level by producing entropy. However, coauthor Mauro Paternostro noted that the experiment does not identify the cause of irreversibility at the microscopic scale.

4) What would the author of Text 1 most likely say about the experiment in Text 2?

A. It fits with microscopic reversibility but not with macroscopic entropy.
B. It shows current microscopic theory is incomplete, since irreversibility appeared there too.
C. It applies only to isolated lab systems, not the broader universe.
D. It fully resolves the mystery of time’s arrow.

Text 1 (Wright). Archaeologist David Wright argues that Neolithic peoples contributed to the Sahara’s desertification. He points to their adoption of pastoralism, with livestock grazing that depleted vegetation. This environmental disruption, he suggests, helped drive the region’s shift from a lush ecosystem to arid desert.
Text 2 (Brierley et al.). Research led by Chris Brierley challenges Wright’s claim. Using advanced climate-vegetation models, the team concluded that the Sahara’s humid period ended about 500 years earlier than previously thought. This revised timeline implies that Neolithic peoples did not trigger aridity. On the contrary, selective grazing and other practices may have helped delay environmental change by preserving vegetation.

5) Based on the texts, how would Brierley most likely respond to Wright’s argument?

A. By noting pastoralism was just one of many human activities affecting the climate.
B. By emphasizing pastoralism can have both helpful and harmful effects on vegetation.
C. By calling for more research into other possible causes of desertification.
D. By pointing out that given the new timeline, Neolithic subsistence practices likely did not cause desertification.

SAT 리딩 기출 유형 — Cross-Text Connections: 정답 확인

SAT 리딩 기출 유형 — Cross-Text Connections(교차 지문) 문제 푸는 방법

1. Text 1 ↔ Text 2: 주장(Claim) → 태도(Stance) → 반응(Response)

이 유형은 두 지문을 비교해 한 텍스트의 저자가 다른 텍스트의 특정 주장(보통 밑줄 친 부분)에 어떻게 반응할지를 묻습니다.
루틴: (i) 각 텍스트의 핵심 주장 1문장으로 요약 → (ii) 밑줄 친 주장 정확히 재진술 → (iii) 다른 텍스트의 태도(agree/qualify/challenge)를 결정 → (iv) 그 태도를 가장 직접적으로 드러내는 선택지 고르기.
힌트 문구: “How would the author of Text 2 most likely respond…” / “Which choice best describes how the texts relate…” 등은 전형적인 Cross-Text 신호입니다.

2. Elimination 전략(교차 지문 전용)

목적 일치: 선택지가 밑줄 친 주장에 직접 반응하지 않으면 탈락(배경 설명만 하거나 주제를 확장하면 오답).
태도 불일치: Text 2가 “부분 동의+수정(qualify)”인데 전면 동의/전면 반박을 주장하면 탈락.
출처 혼동 금지: Text 1의 예시·용어를 Text 2가 말한 것처럼 섞으면 오답 패턴.
강도 과장 금지: 원문에 없는 “항상/절대/완전히 해결” 같은 극단 표현은 우선 제외.

3. 관계(Relationship) 정형 패턴

Agree-But(부분 동의 후 한정): “위험 가능성엔 동의하지만, 항상 그런 건 아니다.”
Challenge(반박): “언어 분석/실험 결과가 그 주장을 직접 반박한다.”
Refine(정교화): “같은 방향이지만, 원인·범위·시점을 더 정확히 제시한다.”
Reconcile(조화): “겉보기 충돌을 조건·정의로 조정해 화해시킨다.”
Method vs. Claim: “방법론의 한계/강점을 들어 주장의 강도를 조정한다.”

4. 선택지 문형(보이는 대로 해석하기)

동의: “would agree that / supports / is consistent with …”
수정(한정): “but notes that / while adding that / does not necessarily …”
반박: “would challenge / counters with evidence / disputes …”
관계 질문: “Text 1 presents X and proposes Y, whereas Text 2 provides Z that calls Y into question.”

📌 Cross-Text Connections 핵심 전략

Claim 한 줄 요약: 각 텍스트의 주장을 12~18단어 내로 요약해 대비(메모처럼).
Underline 정조준: 밑줄 친 문장이 “사실/원인/가치판단/일반화” 중 무엇인지 파악.
Stance 매칭: Text 2의 언어(hedge, 예외, 반례, 데이터)를 근거로 agree/qualify/challenge 결정.
가장 직접적인 문장: 배경·정의·예시보다 반응 자체를 말하는 선택지가 정답.

교차 지문 체크리스트 (상위권)

문제 유형 식별: “How would the author of Text 2 respond… / How do the texts relate…”
밑줄 초점 유지: 밑줄 바깥 논점으로 새지 않기.
증거 어휘 포착: Text 2의 “for instance / data show / model suggests / experiment confirms”는 반박 또는 정교화 신호.
강도 점검: Text 2가 “경우에 따라”라고 하면 “항상/절대” 선택지는 제외.
관계 요약 테스트: “Text 1 says ___, Text 2 (agrees but / challenges / narrows) by ___.”로 말이 매끄러우면 정답 후보.