SAT R&W 32: “How Would the Author of Text 2 Respond?” — Answering in the Author's Voice

O'qish Ikki matn bog'lanishi (Cross-Text Connections) 3-dars, jami 4
Shu mavzudagi darslar · 3/4
  1. SAT R&W 30: Two Texts, One Question — Mapping Agreement and Disagreement
  2. SAT R&W 31: Finding the Exact Point of Contact Between Text 1 and Text 2
  3. SAT R&W 32: “How Would the Author of Text 2 Respond?” — Answering in the Author's Voice
  4. 4 SAT R&W 33: Cross-Text Connections — Mixed Practice

Siz emas — u javob beradi

Bu turdagi eng ko'p uchraydigan savol shakli: Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to …?

Savol sizdan fikr so'ramayapti. U sizdan boshqa odamning og'zidan gapirishni so'rayapti. Va o'sha odam haqida siz bilgan yagona narsa — Text 2 da yozilgani.

📝 Namuna:

To'g'ri javob uchta shartni birdan bajaradi:
1. Text 2 muallifi buni aytishga asosi bor;
2. u Text 1 dagi aynan o'sha narsaga tegadi;
3. u Text 2 da bor — sizning bilimingizdan emas.

⏱ ~90 soniya

Uchta manba, uchta tuzoq

Noto'g'ri variantlar deyarli har doim javobni noto'g'ri joydan oladi:

Javob qayerdan olinganNega tuzoq
Sizning fikringizdanMavzu tanish bo'lsa, siz o'z xulosangizni muallifga yopishtirasiz
Text 1 danVariant Text 1 ning fikrini takrorlaydi — lekin javob beradigan odam Text 2 muallifi
Dunyoda rost narsadanTo'g'ri gap, lekin bu ikki matnning hech birida yo'q
Text 2 dan, lekin haddan tashqari kuchliText 2 «ba'zan» degan joyda variant «hech qachon» deydi
⚠️ Tuzoq: Yo'nalish xatosi. How would the author of Text 2 respond to Text 1 va … Text 1 respond to Text 2 — bu ikki xil savol, va SAT ikkalasini ham beradi. Savolni o'qiyotib kim gapiryapti va nimaga javob beryapti — ikkovini ham belgilang. Yo'nalishni teskari o'qigan o'quvchi uchun to'g'ri javob variantlar orasida umuman ko'rinmaydi.

Kuch darajasiga qarang

Bu turda variantlar ko'pincha bir xil fikrni turli kuch bilan aytadi. Text 2 ning o'z ohangi javobni tanlaydi:

Text 2 shunday yozsaJavob shunday bo'ladi
may · suggests · in some casesehtiyotkor: by suggesting that…
shows · demonstrates · consistentlyqat'iy: by arguing that…
Faqat bitta holatni keltiradiby pointing out that… — kichik, aniq e'tiroz
💡 Maslahat: Ikki variant bir xil fikrni aytayotgan bo'lsa, ularning fe'llarini solishtiring: suggesting vs proving, questioning vs refuting. Text 2 hech qachon isbotlamagan narsani «isbotladi» deb ko'rsatadigan variant — tuzoq.

Ishlangan namuna

Text 1

Children who are read to at home arrive at school with larger vocabularies, and the gap between them and other children widens over the following years. Reading aloud in the early years, then, does more than teach words: it starts a process that keeps compounding long after the reading has stopped.

Text 2

Households where an adult reads aloud differ from other households in many ways at once — in income, in hours worked, in how quiet the rooms are. Where a programme has supplied books and shown parents how to use them, vocabulary gains appear but are smaller than the gap between the two kinds of household would predict.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the conclusion drawn in Text 1?

  1. By arguing that reading aloud to children has no effect on their vocabulary.
  2. By suggesting that some of the gap may be produced by other differences between the households rather than by the reading itself.
  3. By agreeing that early reading starts a process that continues to compound for years.
  4. By recommending that schools provide books to every family in the district.
⏱ ~90 soniya

Yechim

Yo'nalish: Text 2 muallifi → Text 1 ning xulosasiga.

Text 1 bitta jumlada: «ovoz chiqarib o'qish so'z boyligini oshiradi va ta'sir yillar davomida ko'payib boradi».

Text 2 bitta jumlada: «bunday oilalar boshqa ko'p jihatdan ham farq qiladi, va kitob bergan dasturlarda foyda bor-u, kutilganidan kichik».

Kuch darajasi: Text 2 smaller than … would predict deydi — ya'ni foyda bor, lekin hammasini o'qish tushuntirmaydi. Ehtiyotkor ohang. Demak javob ham ehtiyotkor bo'lishi kerak: by suggesting, «ba'zi qismi».

TO‘G‘RIBy suggesting that some of the gap may be produced by other differences between the households rather than by the reading itself — some va may — Text 2 ning o'z kuch darajasiga aynan mos. Va dalili ham shu: dastur o'qishni qo'shganda foyda kutilganidan kichik chiqdi, demak farqning bir qismi boshqa narsadan.
TUZOQBy arguing that reading aloud to children has no effect on their vocabulary — haddan tashqari kuchli. Text 2 aynan aksini aytadi: vocabulary gains appear. Foydaning kichikligini «yo'qligi» deb o'qish — bu turdagi eng ko'p uchraydigan xato.
TUZOQBy agreeing that early reading starts a process that continues to compound for years — bu Text 1 ning fikri, Text 2 niki emas. Javob beradigan odam Text 2 muallifi ekanini unutgan o'quvchi shu variantni tanlaydi.
TUZOQBy recommending that schools provide books to every family in the district — Text 2 dasturni dalil sifatida keltiradi, tavsiya sifatida emas — va uning natijasi kutilganidan zaif chiqdi, ya'ni bu tavsiya matnning o'z dalilidan ham kelib chiqmaydi.
📌 Eslatma: Bu matn juftligi korrelyatsiya ↔ sabab muammosining klassik shakli, va SAT uni juda yaxshi ko'radi. Text 1 bog'liqlikni ko'radi va sababni chiqaradi; Text 2 «balki uchinchi narsa ikkovini ham keltirib chiqargandir» deydi. Bu shaklni tanib olsangiz, javob deyarli har doim ehtiyotkor va «boshqa farqlar» haqida bo'ladi.

Text 1

Cities that painted their roofs white recorded lower indoor temperatures the following summer, in some blocks by three degrees. Since the paint is cheap and needs no machinery, it is among the few cooling measures a poor city can afford at scale.

Text 2

A white roof reflects sunlight back into the street, where it is absorbed by walls and pavement. Measurements at head height on painted blocks show air temperatures a little higher than on unpainted ones. The building is cooler; the person walking past it is not.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the recommendation in Text 1?

Text 1

A committee that must reach a unanimous verdict deliberates longer and examines more of the evidence than one that needs only a majority. Requiring unanimity therefore produces better-reasoned decisions.

Text 2

Recordings of unanimous-verdict deliberations show that the extra time is not evenly spent. Once a large majority has formed, the discussion turns from the evidence to the holdouts, and the additional minutes go to persuading two people rather than to examining anything.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 1 most likely respond to the findings reported in Text 2?

Text 1

Museums have begun returning objects taken during colonial rule, and the usual objection is practical: that the receiving institutions lack the climate control and security that keep fragile things intact.

Text 2

The objection describes a condition, not a principle, and conditions change. Where funds for a purpose-built store have been raised — sometimes by the returning museum itself — the argument has simply dissolved. What it was defending in the meantime was possession.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely characterise the objection described in Text 1?

Text 1

Employees at a large firm who were offered flexible starting hours reported markedly higher satisfaction a year later, and turnover among them fell. Flexibility of this kind costs an employer almost nothing and should be offered wherever people work.

Text 2

Take-up in that firm was concentrated almost entirely among staff whose work passes to nobody at the end of the day. Where a post must be handed over to the next person on duty, the same offer was made and went almost unused, and satisfaction there did not move.

Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the recommendation in Text 1?

Kalit so'zlar — Key vocabulary

to respond to a claim
da'voga javob bermoq
to point out that ~
~ ga e'tibor qaratmoq (kichik, aniq e'tiroz)
to compound
ortib bormoq, kuchayib ko'payib bormoq
a holdout
rozi bo'lmay turgan kishi
a condition, not a principle
holat, printsip emas
to dissolve (of an argument)
(dalil) o'z-o'zidan yo'qolmoq
unanimous
bir ovozdan, yakdil
well-founded
asosli, o'rinli

Xulosa

  • Javobni siz emas, matn muallifi beradi — va faqat o'z matnidagi narsa bilan.
  • Savolda kim gapiryapti va nimaga javob beryapti — ikkovini ham belgilang.
  • Variantning fe'liga qarang: suggesting ≠ proving.
  • Eng ko'p xato: cheklashni to'liq inkor deb o'qish (smaller → no effect).
  • Ikkinchi eng ko'p xato: Text 1 ning fikrini Text 2 muallifiga yopishtirish.
Rivojlanishni kuzatish uchun kiring
Oldingi SAT R&W 31: Finding the Exact Point of Contact Between Text 1 and Text 2
Keyingi SAT R&W 33: Cross-Text Connections — Mixed Practice
Ikki matn bog'lanishi (Cross-Text Connections)
  1. SAT R&W 30: Two Texts, One Question — Mapping Agreement and Disagreement
  2. SAT R&W 31: Finding the Exact Point of Contact Between Text 1 and Text 2
  3. SAT R&W 32: “How Would the Author of Text 2 Respond?” — Answering in the Author's Voice
  4. 4 SAT R&W 33: Cross-Text Connections — Mixed Practice