All questions
Question 1
Text A (Blog Post): I started growing my own vegetables last spring, and it has completely changed how I eat. There is nothing better than picking a tomato from your own garden and eating it the same day. Fresh homegrown vegetables taste so much better than the ones from the grocery store, which often travel hundreds of miles before reaching the shelf. Growing your own food also saves money over time, though the initial setup—buying soil, seeds, and containers—can be costly. I highly recommend gardening to anyone who wants to improve their diet.
Text B (Informational Article): Community gardens are shared spaces where city residents can rent small plots of land to grow fruits and vegetables. Research shows that participants in community garden programs increase their consumption of fresh produce by an average of 40%. Community gardens also build social connections, as neighbors work side by side and share gardening knowledge. However, wait lists for community garden plots in large cities can be years long, making access difficult for many interested residents.
Which of the following best describes a key difference in how Text A and Text B present information about growing food?
- Text A relies on personal experience and opinion to support its claims, while Text B uses research findings and factual descriptions to present information about gardening. (correct answer)
- Text A discusses the health benefits of eating fresh vegetables, while Text B focuses entirely on the social benefits of gardening and does not mention health at all.
- Text A presents gardening as accessible and affordable for everyone, while Text B argues that gardening is too expensive for most city residents to attempt.
- Text A is written for an academic audience using formal language and citations, while Text B is written for a general audience using casual, conversational language.
Explanation: When a question asks you to compare how two texts present information, focus on the source and style of evidence in each — not just the topic. Ask yourself: Is the writer sharing personal feelings and stories, or reporting facts and data?
In Text A, the blogger uses first-person language ("I started," "I highly recommend") and draws entirely from personal experience. Phrases like "there is nothing better" are opinions, not proven facts. Text B, on the other hand, cites research ("an average of 40%"), describes programs objectively, and uses neutral, factual language throughout. This contrast makes A the correct answer — Text A leans on personal experience and opinion, while Text B uses research and factual description.
Choice B is tempting but inaccurate. While Text B does mention social benefits, it also references increased consumption of fresh produce, which connects directly to health. It does not ignore health entirely. Choice C misrepresents both texts. Text A actually acknowledges that setup costs "can be costly," so it doesn't claim gardening is affordable for everyone. Text B never argues gardening is too expensive — it mentions wait lists, not cost, as the barrier. Choice D reverses reality. Text A is the casual, conversational piece (it's a blog), while Text B is the more formal, informational article. The descriptions in D are completely backwards.
A useful strategy: when comparing texts, make a quick mental chart — who is speaking, what kind of evidence do they use, and what is the tone? Questions about text differences almost always hinge on one of those three elements.
Question 2
Text A: The Mediterranean diet, which emphasizes olive oil, fish, whole grains, and fresh vegetables, has been widely praised by nutritionists. People who follow this diet tend to have lower rates of heart disease and live longer on average than people who eat diets high in processed foods. Some researchers believe the diet's benefits come primarily from olive oil, which contains healthy fats that protect the heart. The diet is also relatively easy to follow because it allows a wide variety of foods.
Text B: The plant-based diet, in which people avoid all or most animal products, is gaining popularity as both a health strategy and an environmental choice. Followers of a strict plant-based diet have been shown to have lower body weight and reduced risk of type 2 diabetes compared to meat eaters. Critics note, however, that a poorly planned plant-based diet can lead to deficiencies in nutrients such as vitamin B12, iron, and calcium, which are found primarily in animal products. Careful meal planning or supplementation is therefore necessary for people following this diet.
Both texts discuss health benefits of specific diets, but they differ in one important way regarding risks or concerns. Which statement best captures this difference?
- Text A presents no uncertainty or limitations of any kind about the Mediterranean diet, while Text B identifies specific nutritional risks that followers of the plant-based diet must actively manage.
- Text A raises concerns about the high cost of the Mediterranean diet for low-income families, while Text B raises concerns about the social difficulty of avoiding animal products at restaurants and family meals.
- Text A contains a subtle uncertainty—researchers debate which part of the diet is most beneficial—while Text B describes a concrete nutritional risk that requires followers to take specific action. (correct answer)
- Text A warns that the Mediterranean diet is hard to follow because it restricts too many foods, while Text B warns that the plant-based diet causes vitamin deficiencies in everyone who attempts it.
Explanation: When a question asks you to compare how two texts handle risks or concerns, your job is to read carefully for what each author actually says — and what they don't say. Look for specific claims, qualifications, and language that signals doubt or debate.
Text A mentions that "some researchers believe" the diet's benefits come primarily from olive oil — this is a subtle uncertainty, not a warning or limitation. The author never calls the Mediterranean diet risky or hard to follow; in fact, the text says it's "relatively easy." Text B, by contrast, explicitly identifies concrete nutritional risks (vitamin B12, iron, calcium deficiencies) and directly tells readers they must take specific action — careful planning or supplementation. This combination of a soft, internal debate in Text A versus a clear, actionable risk in Text B is exactly what C describes, making it the correct answer.
Answer A goes too far by claiming Text A presents "no uncertainty of any kind." The researcher debate is a form of uncertainty — A just misreads it as the absence of any nuance. Answer B invents concerns that appear nowhere in either passage. Neither text mentions cost, restaurants, or social difficulties — this is a classic distractor that sounds plausible but has no textual support. Answer D misrepresents both texts. Text A actually says the diet is easy to follow, and Text B says deficiencies occur in poorly planned diets, not in everyone who tries it. D turns a conditional risk into an absolute one, which is a distortion.
Your strategy: when comparing two texts, underline exactly what each one claims — and watch for distractors that either invent details or exaggerate what the text actually says.
Question 3
Text A: Remote work, or working from home, became much more common after 2020. Many employees report higher job satisfaction when they work remotely because they save time on commuting and have more flexibility in their schedules. Employers have also noticed that some remote workers are more productive than they were in the office, possibly because they have fewer interruptions. However, remote work is not possible for all jobs—positions that require physical presence, such as healthcare workers or construction workers, cannot be done from home.
Text B: While remote work offers certain conveniences, it also creates serious challenges for many workers. Studies have found that remote employees often work longer hours than office employees because the boundary between work and personal life becomes unclear. Social isolation is another common problem—without daily face-to-face interaction with colleagues, some remote workers report feelings of loneliness and disconnection from their company's culture. Young workers and new employees are especially affected, as they miss important opportunities for mentorship and informal learning that happen naturally in office settings.
A reader claims that Text A and Text B contradict each other about worker productivity in remote settings. Is this claim accurate based on a careful reading of both texts?
- Yes, because Text A directly states that all remote workers are more productive than office workers, while Text B directly states that all remote workers are less productive due to longer hours and distractions.
- No, because Text A says some remote workers may be more productive (using cautious language), while Text B discusses longer hours and isolation without making a direct claim that productivity decreases. (correct answer)
- Yes, because Text A presents only positive evidence about remote work while Text B presents only negative evidence, and two texts that disagree in tone must logically contradict each other on every specific point.
- No, because both texts agree completely that remote work increases productivity for all types of workers and that the only limitation is job type, such as healthcare or construction roles.
Explanation: When reading two texts together, your job is not just to notice if they feel different in tone — you must look carefully at the exact claims each text makes and whether those claims truly oppose each other.
Text A says that some remote workers may be more productive, using cautious, qualified language ("some," "possibly"). It never claims all remote workers are more productive. Text B discusses longer hours and social isolation, but it never directly says remote workers are less productive overall. Because neither text makes a sweeping, opposing claim about productivity, there is no true contradiction on that specific point — making B the correct answer. The two texts highlight different aspects of remote work without directly clashing on productivity.
Answer A is wrong because it misreads both texts. Text A does not say all remote workers are more productive, and Text B does not say all remote workers are less productive due to distractions. This answer invents absolute statements that neither passage actually makes. Answer C is wrong because it confuses tone with contradiction. Two texts can disagree in focus or emphasis without logically contradicting each other on every specific fact — tone disagreement is not the same as factual contradiction. Answer D is wrong because the two texts clearly do not agree completely; Text B raises significant concerns about remote work that Text A does not address.
A useful strategy: when a question asks whether two texts contradict each other, slow down and find the exact sentence in each text that would need to conflict. Qualified language like "some" or "possibly" rarely creates a true contradiction — precision in reading is everything here.
Question 4
Text A (News Article): The city of Millfield announced a new program this month to plant 10,000 trees throughout the downtown area over the next five years. City officials say the trees will help lower temperatures in the city center, where summer temperatures can be up to 8 degrees hotter than in surrounding suburban areas due to a phenomenon called the urban heat island effect. The program will cost approximately $2 million and will be funded through a combination of city taxes and private donations.
Text B (Letter to the Editor): I am writing to express my concern about the city's new tree-planting program. While I agree that reducing urban heat is an important goal, I question whether trees are the most cost-effective solution. For $2 million, the city could install reflective roofing on municipal buildings, which studies show can reduce building temperatures by up to 15 degrees—nearly twice the cooling effect of trees. I urge city leaders to reconsider and invest in solutions that offer the greatest benefit per dollar spent.
Which of the following accurately describes something that both texts agree on, even though they have different overall purposes?
- Both texts agree that the tree-planting program is the best possible use of the city's $2 million budget and that no other option would be as effective or community-friendly.
- Both texts agree that the urban heat island effect is a real and significant problem in Millfield that the city should take steps to address with available funding. (correct answer)
- Both texts agree that reflective roofing is a superior solution to tree planting and that city officials made an error in selecting trees as their primary strategy.
- Both texts agree that private donations should not be used to fund public city programs and that all environmental initiatives should come from tax revenue alone.
Explanation: When a question asks what two texts agree on, your job is to look past their differences in purpose and find the common ground — ideas that both authors would nod "yes" to, even if they disagree about solutions.
Both texts clearly share one belief: that urban heat in Millfield is a real problem worth addressing. Text A explains the urban heat island effect and describes how summer temperatures downtown can be up to 8 degrees hotter than surrounding areas. Text B's author opens by saying, "I agree that reducing urban heat is an important goal." Even though the letter writer opposes the tree program, they never deny the problem — they just disagree about the best fix. That shared agreement makes B the correct answer.
A is wrong because only Text A supports the tree-planting program. Text B actively argues against it, so there is no agreement that trees are the "best possible use" of the budget.
C is wrong in the opposite direction — only Text B promotes reflective roofing as superior. Text A never mentions roofing at all, so you cannot say both texts agree on this point.
D is wrong because neither text discusses whether private donations are appropriate for public programs. Text A simply mentions them as part of the funding plan without commentary, and Text B never brings them up at all. This answer introduces an idea that exists in neither passage.
A useful strategy: when comparing two texts, ask yourself, "Would both authors sign their name to this statement?" If one author would object, it's not shared agreement — even if the statement sounds reasonable on its own.
Question 5
Text A: Learning a second language as an adult is challenging but achievable. Adults often struggle with pronunciation because the brain's ability to distinguish new sounds decreases after childhood. However, adults have important advantages over children: they already understand how grammar works in their first language, and they have larger vocabularies of concepts they simply need to map to new words. Adult learners who study consistently for six months can typically reach a conversational level in a closely related language.
Text B: Children learn languages more easily than adults, primarily because their brains are more flexible and adaptable—a quality scientists call neuroplasticity. Young children absorb language naturally through listening and play without formal instruction. By contrast, most adult learners rely heavily on translation and grammar rules, which can slow the natural development of fluency. Research suggests that the earlier a person begins learning a second language, the more likely they are to achieve native-like pronunciation and accent.
Both texts discuss the relationship between age and language learning. Which of the following statements reflects an accurate comparison of a specific point where the two texts present different information or emphasis?
- Text A claims that adults cannot reach fluency in any language, while Text B claims that children always achieve perfect fluency in every second language they are exposed to before age five.
- Text A states that adult learners should avoid using grammar instruction because it slows fluency, while Text B recommends that adults use grammar rules as their primary tool for achieving native-like pronunciation.
- Text A argues that pronunciation is equally difficult for both children and adults learning a new language, while Text B argues that only adults face pronunciation challenges because of their reliance on grammar rules.
- Text A emphasizes cognitive advantages that adult learners have over children, while Text B emphasizes neurological advantages that children have over adult learners in acquiring a new language. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to compare two texts on the same topic, your job is to identify what each text emphasizes — not just what they mention, but what point each author is making. This is a critical reading skill that requires you to look beyond surface similarities.
Both texts agree that age affects language learning, but they highlight different advantages. Text A focuses on what adult learners bring to the table: existing grammar knowledge and a large conceptual vocabulary. These are cognitive advantages — benefits from years of thinking and learning. Text B, on the other hand, highlights neurological advantages children have — specifically neuroplasticity, the brain's flexibility that allows natural language absorption without formal instruction. Answer D accurately captures this contrast: one text favors the adult learner's mind, the other favors the child's brain biology.
Choice A is a distortion trap — Text A never says adults cannot reach fluency, and Text B never claims children achieve perfect fluency. Both of these are exaggerations the texts simply don't make. Choice B reverses the actual positions: it's Text B (not Text A) that suggests grammar reliance slows fluency, and neither text recommends grammar rules specifically for pronunciation. Choice C is also inaccurate — Text A says pronunciation is harder for adults, not equally hard for both groups, making this a direct misreading of Text A's argument.
Study tip: When comparing two texts, create a quick mental two-column chart — "Text A says..." vs. "Text B says..." Watch for answer choices that swap positions between the two texts or use absolute language like "always" and "cannot," which are usually signs of distortion.
Question 6
Text A: Volunteering in your local community has many personal benefits. People who volunteer regularly report higher levels of happiness and lower rates of depression than those who do not. Giving time to help others creates a sense of purpose and connection that is difficult to find in other activities. Volunteering can also help job seekers, as employers often view volunteer experience as evidence of responsibility and teamwork skills. Local food banks, libraries, and animal shelters always need reliable volunteers.
Text B: Volunteering abroad—traveling to another country to participate in humanitarian or environmental projects—has become increasingly popular, especially among college students and young professionals. However, researchers and development experts have raised serious questions about whether short-term international volunteering actually helps the communities it intends to serve. When volunteers stay for only a few weeks, they may disrupt ongoing projects, take jobs that local workers could fill, and leave before their work is complete. Experts recommend that people who want to make a meaningful international impact donate money to established organizations rather than volunteer in person for short periods.
A student summarizes both texts as follows: 'Both texts conclude that volunteering is always beneficial and that everyone should volunteer as much as possible.' Which explanation best describes why this summary is inaccurate?
- The summary is inaccurate because neither text actually discusses volunteering at all—Text A focuses on mental health and Text B focuses on international travel, so the student confused the topics entirely.
- The summary is inaccurate because both texts agree that volunteering is harmful, and the student misread the texts by assuming they were positive when both passages warn against the practice of volunteering.
- The summary is inaccurate because Text A argues against volunteering, warning that it can cause depression and reduce job opportunities, while Text B argues that all forms of volunteering—local and international—are harmful to communities.
- The summary is inaccurate because Text A supports local volunteering with positive claims, but Text B questions whether short-term international volunteering is genuinely helpful and even suggests that donating money may be better than volunteering in person. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a question asks you to evaluate a summary of multiple texts, your job is to check whether the summary accurately reflects what each text actually argues—not just its general topic. A good summary must represent all texts fairly, including any disagreements between them.
Text A is genuinely positive about volunteering: it highlights happiness, reduced depression, and career benefits for local volunteers. Text B, however, takes a more critical stance specifically toward short-term international volunteering, warning that it can disrupt communities and suggesting that donating money may be more effective. The student's summary claims both texts say volunteering is "always beneficial"—but that directly contradicts Text B's cautionary message. Answer D correctly captures this contrast: Text A supports local volunteering, while Text B questions the value of short-term international volunteering and offers an alternative recommendation. D is your correct answer.
Answer A is wrong because both texts absolutely do discuss volunteering—that's their central subject. Calling Text A a piece about "mental health" and Text B a piece about "travel" ignores their clear focus on volunteer work. Answer B goes too far in the opposite direction, claiming both texts argue volunteering is harmful, which misrepresents Text A entirely—Text A is enthusiastically in favor of volunteering. Answer C makes the same kind of error by falsely claiming Text A warns against volunteering and that Text B condemns all forms of it; in reality, Text B only critiques short-term international volunteering, not local efforts.
When summarizing multiple texts, always ask yourself: "Do these texts agree or disagree, and about what specifically?" Watch for summaries that erase important differences between authors' viewpoints—that's a common trap on reading comprehension questions.
Question 7
Text A: Many schools across the country are adopting four-day school weeks, compressing the traditional Monday-through-Friday schedule into four longer days. Supporters argue that this change improves teacher morale and reduces burnout, which has led to lower teacher turnover rates in some rural districts. Students also report feeling less stressed. Critics, however, note that the longer school days can be exhausting for younger children, and the change creates childcare challenges for working parents who need supervision for their children on the fifth day.
Text B: Research on academic outcomes in four-day school week districts shows mixed results. Some studies find that student test scores in math and reading remain stable or even improve slightly after the switch, possibly because students and teachers are more rested and motivated. Other studies, particularly those focused on low-income students, show a decline in academic performance. Researchers believe this may be because lower-income students are less likely to have access to enriching activities or academic support on the day off, widening the existing achievement gap between wealthy and low-income students.
Which of the following conclusions can be drawn by carefully comparing both texts, rather than relying on only one?
- The four-day school week is clearly beneficial for all students and teachers because both texts confirm that test scores improve and teacher burnout is completely eliminated in every district that has adopted the schedule.
- The four-day school week has no effect on academic performance because Text B states that all research on the topic is inconclusive, and Text A confirms that student stress levels are the only measurable outcome.
- The four-day school week may benefit teacher retention and reduce student stress, but its academic benefits are uneven and may disproportionately disadvantage lower-income students who lack support on the day off. (correct answer)
- The four-day school week should be immediately adopted by all schools nationwide because both texts agree it solves the most serious problems in education, including low test scores, teacher shortages, and poverty.
Explanation: When a question asks you to compare two texts, your job is to find a conclusion that honestly reflects both passages together — not just one, and not something stronger than what either text actually claims.
Text A highlights real benefits: improved teacher morale, lower turnover, and reduced student stress. But it also raises concerns, like childcare problems and exhaustion in younger children. Text B adds an important layer — academic results are mixed, and specifically, lower-income students may fall further behind because they lack support on the day off. Putting both texts together, you can reasonably conclude that the four-day week helps some people (teachers, less-stressed students) but creates uneven academic outcomes that may hurt vulnerable students most. That's exactly what C says, making it the answer that correctly synthesizes both sources.
A is a trap because it overgeneralizes. Neither text says test scores improve everywhere or that burnout is completely eliminated. Watch for words like "all," "every," and "completely" — they're usually signs of an exaggerated claim. B distorts both texts. Text B does not say all research is inconclusive, and Text A never claims stress is the only measurable outcome. This answer puts false words into the texts. D is an opinion disguised as a conclusion. Neither text recommends nationwide adoption, and neither claims the schedule solves poverty or teacher shortages entirely.
Your study tip: on compare-and-contrast reading questions, eliminate any answer that ignores one text, contradicts a text, or uses absolute language ("all," "never," "completely") that the texts don't actually support.
Question 8
Text A: Sleep is essential for good health. During sleep, the body repairs damaged tissues and the brain processes memories from the day. Adults generally need between seven and nine hours of sleep per night. Unfortunately, many adults in modern societies sleep fewer than six hours because of work schedules and screen time before bed. Doctors recommend turning off electronic devices at least one hour before sleeping to improve sleep quality.
Text B: Exercise plays a critical role in helping people sleep better. Research shows that adults who engage in moderate physical activity, such as walking or swimming, for at least 30 minutes a day fall asleep faster and experience deeper sleep than inactive adults. However, exercising too close to bedtime—within two hours—can actually make it harder to fall asleep because physical activity raises the body's core temperature and increases alertness. Morning or afternoon exercise is therefore recommended for the best sleep results.
A student reads both texts and concludes: 'Both texts agree that the single most important factor for good sleep is avoiding stimulating activities in the evening.' Is this conclusion supported by the texts?
- Yes, because both texts specifically identify evening stimulation—screens in Text A and late exercise in Text B—as the primary and most critical cause of poor sleep in adults.
- No, because Text A focuses on avoiding screens but does not rank screen avoidance as the most important factor, and Text B's main point is about the overall benefits of exercise, not just avoiding evening exercise. (correct answer)
- Yes, because Text B explicitly states that avoiding evening exercise is more important than any other sleep strategy, which aligns with Text A's advice about screens.
- No, because the two texts actually contradict each other—Text A says electronics cause poor sleep while Text B claims only exercise timing matters, so no shared conclusion is possible.
Explanation: When a question asks whether a conclusion is "supported by the texts," your job is to be a careful reader — check whether the conclusion accurately represents what both texts actually say, including how strongly they say it. Watch out for conclusions that exaggerate or add claims the texts never make.
The student's conclusion has two problems: it says both texts agree on a single most important factor, and it names that factor as avoiding stimulating activities in the evening. Neither text actually makes that ranking. Text A explains that sleep matters for health, mentions screen time as one reason adults sleep poorly, and offers one recommendation — but never calls screen avoidance the most important strategy. Text B's main message is that regular exercise improves sleep overall; avoiding late-night exercise is a side note, a caution, not the central point. Because neither text ranks factors by importance, the student's conclusion goes further than the evidence allows. That makes B correct — it accurately identifies that Text A doesn't rank screen avoidance as primary, and that Text B's focus is the broad benefits of exercise, not just evening avoidance.
Choice A is a trap because it takes real details from both texts — screens and late exercise — but falsely calls them the "primary and most critical" causes, which neither text claims. Choice C invents something entirely: Text B never says avoiding evening exercise is more important than any other strategy. Choice D is also wrong because the two texts don't contradict each other — they simply cover different aspects of sleep health and can coexist.
Your strategy: when a conclusion uses strong words like single most important, primary, or most critical, go back and verify the text actually uses that level of emphasis — often, it doesn't.
Question 9
Text A: Sugar consumption in the United States has increased dramatically over the past 50 years, largely because sugar is added to many processed foods and beverages. High sugar intake has been linked to obesity, tooth decay, and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Some public health experts recommend that governments place taxes on sugary drinks to discourage consumption. Evidence from countries that have implemented such taxes—including Mexico and the United Kingdom—suggests that sales of sugary beverages do decrease after taxes are introduced.
Text B: While reducing sugar intake is a reasonable health goal, sugar taxes have significant drawbacks that policymakers should consider. These taxes tend to be regressive, meaning they take a larger percentage of income from low-income households than from wealthy ones, because lower-income families spend a higher proportion of their earnings on food and beverages. Furthermore, some economists argue that consumers simply switch to other unhealthy options when sugary drinks become more expensive, meaning the overall health benefit may be limited. A better approach might be to invest in nutrition education and make healthy foods more affordable.
Both texts reference evidence about sugar taxes, but they use that evidence differently. Which statement most precisely describes this difference?
- Text A cites real-world examples from specific countries to support the effectiveness of sugar taxes, while Text B raises concerns about economic fairness and questions whether behavior change from taxes actually improves overall health outcomes. (correct answer)
- Text A invents fictional data about sugar taxes to persuade readers, while Text B uses peer-reviewed scientific studies to objectively disprove every claim that Text A makes about tax effectiveness.
- Text A and Text B both cite the same evidence from Mexico and the United Kingdom, but they interpret that evidence in opposite ways to reach completely different conclusions about sugar taxes.
- Text A argues that sugar taxes are unnecessary because sugar consumption is already declining, while Text B argues that sugar taxes work well but should only apply to wealthy consumers who can afford to pay them.
Explanation: When a question asks you to compare how two texts use evidence, your job is to look beyond what each text says and focus on the rhetorical purpose — why is each author bringing up evidence, and what work is that evidence doing?
Text A builds a case in favor of sugar taxes by pointing to real countries — Mexico and the United Kingdom — where taxes were introduced and sugary drink sales actually fell. That's concrete, real-world support. Text B doesn't dispute those numbers directly; instead, it shifts the conversation, raising a fairness concern (regressive taxation hurting low-income families) and questioning whether reduced soda sales even translate into better health if people just switch to other unhealthy options. This makes A the most precise answer: it captures both what Text A does (uses country examples to show effectiveness) and what Text B does (challenges economic fairness and the assumption that behavior change equals health improvement).
B is false because Text A doesn't invent fictional data — it references documented real-world cases. Nothing in Text B claims to use peer-reviewed studies, and it certainly doesn't "disprove every claim." This choice uses exaggerated, absolute language as a trap.
C sounds plausible but is factually wrong: Text B never actually mentions Mexico or the United Kingdom. The two texts do not share the same evidence.
D completely misrepresents both texts. Text A never says sugar consumption is declining, and Text B never says taxes should target wealthy consumers.
A useful strategy: when comparing two texts, mentally ask yourself, "What evidence does each one cite, and what conclusion does each author want me to reach?" That two-part thinking will help you find the precise answer on compare-and-contrast reading questions.
Question 10
Text A: Many cities are encouraging people to use public transportation instead of driving. Buses and trains can carry hundreds of passengers at once, which helps reduce traffic on busy roads. In addition, when fewer cars are on the road, air pollution decreases. Some cities have even made public transit free on certain days to attract more riders. However, critics point out that building new transit systems is very expensive and takes many years to complete.
Text B: Cycling has become a popular alternative to driving in urban areas. Many cities have added dedicated bike lanes to make cycling safer and more appealing. Studies show that regular cyclists have lower rates of heart disease and other health problems compared to people who drive everywhere. While cycling is inexpensive and environmentally friendly, it is not practical for everyone—people who live far from work or who have physical limitations may find it difficult to rely on bicycles as their main form of transportation.
Which statement most accurately describes how the two texts are similar in their approach to the topic of transportation alternatives?
- Both texts argue that their recommended transportation option is completely superior to driving and should replace car use entirely in all cities worldwide.
- Both texts present a transportation alternative as beneficial in some ways while also acknowledging a significant limitation or drawback of that alternative. (correct answer)
- Both texts focus primarily on the financial costs that city governments must pay when switching residents away from personal vehicles to other options.
- Both texts use scientific research studies as the main evidence to support the claim that their transportation alternative reduces pollution effectively.
Explanation: When a question asks how two texts are similar in their approach, you need to look for a pattern that appears in both passages — not just one. A useful strategy is to mentally summarize each text in one sentence before comparing them.
Text A presents public transportation as beneficial (reduces traffic, lowers pollution) but then admits a drawback (expensive and slow to build). Text B presents cycling as beneficial (healthier, eco-friendly, cheap) but then acknowledges a limitation (not practical for everyone). Both texts follow the same structure: praise an alternative, then honestly address its weaknesses. That makes B the correct answer — both texts present a transportation alternative as beneficial while also acknowledging a significant limitation.
A is wrong because neither text argues its option should completely replace car use worldwide. Both texts are balanced and cautious, not absolute or universal in their claims. C is wrong because financial costs are only mentioned briefly in Text A and not at all as a central focus in Text B, which emphasizes health and practicality instead. D is wrong because only Text B references a study (on cyclists' heart health), and even that study is about health — not pollution reduction. Text A uses no scientific studies at all.
A helpful tip: on comparison questions, watch out for answers that are partially true — like C and D, which apply to one text but not both. For a similarity to count, it must genuinely appear in both passages. Always check each text individually before deciding.