Two-Passage Questions
Help Questions
SAT Reading & Writing › Two-Passage Questions
Text 1
Electric vehicles (EVs) are often criticized for shifting emissions from tailpipes to power plants, but this critique ignores how quickly grids are cleaning up. As coal declines and renewables expand, each EV becomes cleaner over its lifetime, whereas a gasoline car is locked into burning fuel for years. Battery manufacturing has impacts, yet studies show that, even on relatively fossil-heavy grids, EVs typically emit less over the full life cycle than comparable gasoline cars. Policies should accelerate adoption, not delay it with perfectionism.
Text 2
EVs can reduce emissions, but adoption-focused policy can overlook the constraints that determine whether benefits materialize. In regions where electricity demand is met by aging gas plants, rapid EV growth can extend the life of those plants unless grid upgrades keep pace. Mining for battery minerals also raises local environmental and labor concerns that life-cycle averages can blur. The most climate-effective strategy couples EV incentives with aggressive grid decarbonization, recycling requirements, and investment in public transit so that electrification does not become an excuse to keep car dependence intact.
Which choice best describes how Text 2 complicates the argument in Text 1?
Text 2 denies that EVs can ever reduce emissions and argues that gasoline cars are always cleaner.
Text 2 argues that battery manufacturing has no environmental impacts, strengthening Text 1’s position with new evidence.
Text 2 agrees that EVs are beneficial but argues that realizing those benefits depends on grid policy, mineral sourcing, and reducing car dependence, not just increasing sales.
Text 2 claims that renewable energy is impossible to expand, so grid cleaning cannot occur.
Explanation
Text 1 argues EVs reduce emissions because grids are cleaning up, making each EV cleaner over its lifetime unlike locked-in gasoline cars. Text 2 agrees EVs can reduce emissions but argues that realizing those benefits depends on several factors Text 1 overlooks: in regions with aging gas plants, rapid EV growth can extend their life without grid upgrades; battery mineral mining raises local environmental and labor concerns that life-cycle averages blur; and focusing on adoption alone can perpetuate car dependence. Text 2 advocates coupling EV incentives with aggressive grid decarbonization, recycling requirements, and public transit investment. This complicates Text 1 by adding implementation dependencies and systemic considerations. Choice A incorrectly claims Text 2 denies EVs can reduce emissions. Choice C wrongly suggests Text 2 claims renewable expansion is impossible. Choice D contradicts Text 2's acknowledgment of battery manufacturing impacts.
Text 1
Students should be allowed to use grammar-checking software in writing classes because it functions like a calculator for language: it reduces mechanical errors so learners can focus on ideas. For multilingual students, these tools can provide immediate feedback that teachers cannot always give in real time. Banning them punishes students who lack access to private tutoring and creates an artificial environment unlike college or the workplace, where such tools are common. Writing instruction should emphasize argument and clarity, not a hunt for comma mistakes.
Text 2
Grammar tools can be helpful, but the calculator analogy breaks down because writing is not just computation. When students rely on automated suggestions, they may accept changes they do not understand, flattening their voice and masking persistent weaknesses. Teachers then have less accurate information about what students can do independently, making instruction less targeted. A better approach is limited, transparent use: students can run checks after drafting, but they should also explain major edits and practice editing without software to build durable skill.
Based on Text 2, which modification to Text 1’s proposal would be most consistent with Text 2’s viewpoint?
Ban grammar-checking software entirely because it always destroys a student’s voice.
Replace writing instruction with software use because argument and clarity cannot be taught in school.
Require students to use grammar-checking software on every sentence before they begin drafting so errors never appear.
Allow grammar-checking software but restrict it to post-draft editing and require students to justify significant automated changes.
Explanation
Text 1 argues students should be allowed to use grammar-checking software to focus on ideas rather than mechanical errors. Text 2 agrees tools can be helpful but warns that relying on automated suggestions can lead students to accept changes they don't understand, flattening voice and masking weaknesses. Text 2 proposes limited, transparent use: students can run checks after drafting but should explain major edits and practice editing without software to build durable skill. This modification allows the tool while ensuring students understand and can justify changes, addressing Text 2's concern about understanding and skill development. Choice A contradicts Text 2's acceptance of post-draft use. Choice C is too extreme compared to Text 2's balanced approach. Choice D contradicts both texts' belief in teaching writing.
Text 1
Space agencies should prioritize robotic missions over crewed ones because robots deliver more science per dollar. A rover does not need life support, return tickets, or protection from radiation, so the same budget can fund multiple probes to different worlds. Robotic explorers also tolerate risk: a failed landing is tragic for equipment, not people. The romance of astronauts should not dictate policy when climate monitoring, planetary defense, and basic research all compete for limited public funds.
Text 2
Robots are efficient, but treating crewed exploration as mere romance ignores its strategic value. Human missions drive advances in life-support systems, materials, and medical research that spill into civilian use, and they capture public attention in a way that sustains long-term funding for science. In addition, astronauts can improvise and repair equipment on site, reducing the chance that a single malfunction ends a mission. A balanced program uses robots for routine data collection while reserving human presence for tasks where adaptability matters.
Which choice best summarizes how Text 2 would evaluate Text 1’s position?
Text 2 would agree that robots are always superior and propose ending all human spaceflight immediately.
Text 2 would argue that crewed missions have additional benefits—technological spillovers, public support, and on-site adaptability—so policy should not rely exclusively on robots.
Text 2 would contend that climate monitoring is unrelated to space budgets, so cost comparisons are meaningless.
Text 2 would claim that scientific research should be replaced by tourism because it generates revenue.
Explanation
Text 1 argues that space agencies should prioritize robotic missions because they deliver more science per dollar without life support costs or human risk. Text 2 evaluates this position by arguing that treating crewed exploration as mere romance ignores its strategic value. Text 2 identifies several benefits of human missions: they drive technological advances with civilian applications, capture public attention that sustains funding, and provide on-site adaptability for repairs and improvisation. Text 2 advocates for a balanced program using robots for routine data collection while reserving human presence for tasks requiring adaptability. This represents a nuanced response that acknowledges efficiency while arguing for additional considerations. Choice A incorrectly suggests Text 2 wants to end all human spaceflight. Choice C wrongly claims Text 2 wants to replace research with tourism. Choice D misrepresents Text 2's position on climate monitoring.
Text 1
When cities add protected bike lanes, they do more than serve current cyclists; they create new riders by making cycling feel safe. Surveys consistently show that many residents would bike for short trips if they were separated from fast traffic. Because each new cyclist reduces congestion and air pollution, bike lanes are a cost-effective public investment. Complaints about lost parking ignore that curb space is public land and should be allocated to move the most people, not store private vehicles for free.
Text 2
Protected bike lanes can be beneficial, but their success depends on context that advocates sometimes gloss over. A lane that begins and ends abruptly, or that forces riders into dangerous intersections, may discourage cycling rather than encourage it. In neighborhoods with limited transit and long commuting distances, removing parking without providing alternatives can disproportionately burden low-income workers who rely on cars. The most effective approach pairs bike infrastructure with network planning and equity analysis instead of assuming one design fits every street.
Which statement best captures how Text 2 would respond to the reasoning in Text 1?
Text 2 accepts the general value of protected lanes but argues that design continuity and equity considerations can limit or shape when reallocating curb space is justified.
Text 2 argues that parking should always be free because drivers already pay fuel taxes.
Text 2 claims that surveys about potential cyclists are unreliable because people never change travel behavior.
Text 2 denies that cycling can ever reduce congestion and argues cities should invest only in highways.
Explanation
Text 1 argues that protected bike lanes create new riders by making cycling feel safe and are a cost-effective public investment. Text 2 accepts the general value of protected lanes but argues that success depends on context that advocates sometimes gloss over. Text 2 raises two key qualifications: design continuity matters (lanes that begin and end abruptly may discourage cycling), and equity considerations are important (removing parking without alternatives can burden low-income workers who rely on cars). Text 2 advocates for pairing bike infrastructure with network planning and equity analysis. This represents acceptance of the basic premise with important contextual qualifications. Choice B incorrectly claims Text 2 denies cycling can reduce congestion. Choice C wrongly suggests Text 2 claims surveys are unreliable. Choice D misrepresents Text 2's position on parking and fuel taxes.
Text 1
Digital note-taking apps promise limitless storage, but they also encourage a kind of intellectual hoarding. When every highlight is saved automatically, students feel productive without doing the harder work of selecting, organizing, and revisiting ideas. Paper notebooks impose useful friction: copying a definition by hand forces a decision about what matters, and the physical page makes gaps in understanding visible. For most learners, the simplest way to remember more is to write less but think more about each line.
Text 2
Handwriting can slow people down, yet the medium is not the main villain. Many students fail to learn because they never return to their notes, regardless of whether those notes are on paper or in an app. Digital systems can outperform notebooks when they are designed for retrieval: spaced reminders, searchable tags, and practice questions linked to each concept. The problem is not abundance of highlights but the absence of a routine that turns stored information into repeated recall.
Based on Text 2, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1’s claim that paper notebooks “impose useful friction” that helps most learners remember more?
They would agree and conclude that digital tools cannot be adapted to support learning.
They would reject it, arguing that handwriting is always inferior to typing for comprehension.
They would extend it by arguing that saving more highlights automatically guarantees better memory.
They would qualify it by suggesting that friction matters less than whether students use any system—paper or digital—for repeated retrieval and review.
Explanation
The question asks how the author of Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s claim that paper notebooks 'impose useful friction' that helps most learners remember more. Text 1 argues that friction in handwriting forces selection and visibility of gaps, aiding memory over digital hoarding. Text 2 qualifies this by stating that 'the medium is not the main villain' and that failure comes from not returning to notes, while digital systems can excel with retrieval designs. The relationship is a qualification: Text 2 agrees friction can help but suggests the key is any system for repeated retrieval, not just paper. Choice B represents this by noting that friction matters less than routines for review, using Text 2's evidence on spaced reminders and recall. Choice A misreads the claim by asserting handwriting is inferior, when Text 2 says medium isn't the issue. Choice C uses an unsupported inference that more highlights guarantee memory, contradicting Text 2's focus on routines. Choice D flips authors' positions by claiming agreement leads to rejecting digital adaptation, when Text 2 supports designed digital tools.
Text 1
Artificial intelligence will not eliminate most jobs; it will mainly change them. History suggests that automation replaces specific tasks while creating demand for new coordination and oversight. A customer service agent may spend less time answering routine questions and more time handling unusual cases and training the system. The real risk is not mass unemployment but a mismatch: workers will be asked to do higher-judgment tasks without receiving training or time to adapt. Companies should treat reskilling as a core operating cost, not a perk.
Text 2
Task change is common, but it is not a guarantee of stability. When software can perform not only routine work but also parts of analysis and writing, firms may simply need fewer people overall, especially in roles where output is easy to measure. And reskilling is not free: workers juggling multiple jobs cannot attend training that is scheduled like a corporate retreat. If policymakers want adaptation, they should require employers to fund paid training time and strengthen unemployment insurance for displaced workers, not assume that “new tasks” will appear in time.
Which choice best describes the relationship between the perspectives presented in the two texts?
Text 2 agrees with Text 1 that mass unemployment is impossible and argues that no policy response is required.
Text 2 shifts the topic away from work by focusing only on the ethics of AI decision-making.
Text 2 directly contradicts Text 1 by arguing that automation has never changed job tasks in the past.
Text 2 extends Text 1 by agreeing that reskilling is needed and adding that employer-funded, paid training and stronger safety nets may be necessary because some job loss is still likely.
Explanation
The question asks the relationship between perspectives on AI and jobs. Text 1 argues AI changes tasks, not eliminates jobs, but requires reskilling as a cost. Text 2 extends this by agreeing reskilling is needed but adding that job loss is likely, so fund paid training and safety nets. The relationship is an extension: Text 2 builds on Text 1 by specifying policy needs amid potential losses. Choice B represents this by noting extension with employer-funded training and nets, using Text 2's evidence on fewer people needed and reskilling barriers. Choice A contradicts by claiming Text 2 denies historical change, when it affirms task change. Choice C misreads as agreement on no unemployment and no policy, when Text 2 expects loss. Choice D shifts topic to AI ethics, unsupported in Text 2.
Text 1
Restoring wetlands is frequently justified as a climate solution because wetlands store carbon in waterlogged soils. However, restoration projects can backfire when they ignore methane. In newly flooded areas, microbes may produce methane—a potent greenhouse gas—at rates that offset carbon gains for decades. Treating wetlands as simple “carbon banks” invites disappointment and can undermine public trust in nature-based climate strategies. Restoration should proceed only after careful, site-specific greenhouse gas monitoring.
Text 2
Methane deserves attention, but the fear of “backfire” is often overstated. Many restored wetlands show a short-lived methane spike that declines as plant communities stabilize, while carbon accumulation continues for centuries. Even when climate benefits are uncertain, wetlands provide flood protection and water filtration, reducing disaster costs that are rising with sea-level change. Demanding years of monitoring before restoration can become a convenient excuse for inaction. The better approach is adaptive management: restore, measure, and adjust practices as data arrive.
Based on Text 2, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1’s recommendation that wetland restoration should proceed only after careful, site-specific greenhouse gas monitoring?
They would agree that methane always offsets carbon gains, making restoration pointless.
They would challenge the strict requirement by arguing that monitoring is important but delaying restoration can forgo long-term carbon gains and other benefits, so restoration should begin with adaptive management.
They would support it, arguing that wetlands offer no benefits besides carbon storage.
They would argue that methane spikes increase over time as plants stabilize, so monitoring should stop early.
Explanation
The question asks how the author of Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s recommendation that wetland restoration should proceed only after careful monitoring. Text 1 warns of methane offsetting carbon, so monitor first to avoid backfire. Text 2 challenges this by arguing methane spikes are short-lived, carbon gains long-term, and other benefits exist, so use adaptive management instead of delaying. The relationship is a contradiction: Text 2 says monitoring is key but delaying forgoes gains. Choice B represents this by challenging the strict requirement and advocating adaptive restoration, using Text 2's evidence on declining methane and flood protection. Choice A flips positions by claiming support and no other benefits, when Text 2 lists them. Choice C misreads as agreement on methane always offsetting, when Text 2 says it's overstated. Choice D uses unsupported inference that spikes increase, contradicting Text 2.
Text 1
Electric vehicles are often marketed as “zero-emission,” and for drivers the phrase feels true: there is no tailpipe. Yet the environmental impact depends on the electricity source. In regions still dominated by coal, charging an EV can shift emissions from the road to the power plant. The smartest climate policy is therefore to prioritize cleaning the grid; once electricity is low-carbon, electrifying transportation becomes an obvious win rather than a complicated trade-off.
Text 2
Grid cleanliness matters, but waiting for a perfect grid delays progress. Even on coal-heavy grids, EVs typically improve local air quality by moving pollution away from dense streets, and power plants are easier to regulate than millions of individual engines. More importantly, vehicle fleets turn over slowly: policies that accelerate EV adoption now ensure that, as the grid improves, those vehicles automatically get cleaner without requiring new purchases. Transportation electrification and grid decarbonization should proceed together.
Which claim from Text 2 most directly addresses the idea in Text 1 that electrifying transportation is a “complicated trade-off” on coal-dominated grids?
Power plants are harder to regulate than individual engines because they have more political influence.
Because fleets change slowly, accelerating EV adoption now yields benefits that grow as the grid decarbonizes, so electrification should not wait for a fully clean grid.
Cleaning the grid is the only climate policy that matters because transportation emissions are minor.
EVs eliminate tailpipe emissions, so they are always zero-emission regardless of electricity source.
Explanation
The question asks which claim from Text 2 addresses Text 1's idea that electrifying transportation is a 'complicated trade-off' on coal-dominated grids. Text 1 claims EVs shift emissions to plants, so prioritize grid cleaning. Text 2 counters that even on dirty grids, EVs benefit air quality and regulation ease, and accelerating adoption now yields growing benefits as grids improve. The relationship is a contradiction: Text 2 argues electrification should not wait. Choice C represents this by stating fleets change slowly, so adopt EVs now for compounding benefits, using Text 2's evidence on turnover and parallel progress. Choice A matches topic but uses unsupported inference on political influence, not in Text 2. Choice B misreads claim by asserting EVs are always zero-emission, ignoring Text 2's grid acknowledgment. Choice D flips positions by claiming grid is only policy, when Text 2 supports both.
Text 1
Because social media platforms reward outrage with attention, many commentators argue that the only responsible response is to log off. But withdrawal concedes the public square to the loudest voices. A better approach is to cultivate “slow media” habits: follow fewer accounts, read long-form sources, and share only after verifying claims. Individuals cannot redesign algorithms, yet they can refuse to act as unpaid distributors of misinformation. The health of democratic debate depends on citizens practicing restraint, not disappearance.
Text 2
Personal restraint is admirable, but it is not a strategy equal to the scale of the problem. Platforms optimize for engagement because it increases ad revenue, and a handful of careful users cannot counterbalance millions of automated accounts and coordinated campaigns. Moreover, “slow media” is easier for people with time and education, which means it risks becoming a luxury ethic. Democratic debate will improve only when regulations and platform design changes reduce the reach of sensational content, regardless of individual habits.
Which choice best summarizes how the author of Text 2 would evaluate the conclusion in Text 1 that democratic debate depends on citizens practicing restraint?
They would agree but argue that citizens should disappear from social media entirely.
They would largely disagree, arguing that individual habits are insufficient and potentially inequitable without systemic changes to platform incentives and rules.
They would strongly agree and argue that regulation is unnecessary if users simply verify claims.
They would reject the idea that algorithms influence debate and argue that outrage is a natural feature of democracy.
Explanation
The question asks how the author of Text 2 would evaluate Text 1's conclusion that democratic debate depends on citizens practicing restraint via 'slow media' habits. Text 1 argues individual habits can counter algorithms without logging off. Text 2 largely disagrees, stating restraint is admirable but insufficient without systemic changes to incentives and rules, as it's inequitable and unequal to the scale. The relationship is a contradiction with qualification: Text 2 appreciates restraint but argues it's not enough. Choice A represents this by disagreeing that habits suffice without systemic changes, using Text 2's evidence on platform optimization and luxury ethic. Choice B flips positions by claiming strong agreement and no need for regulation, when Text 2 calls for it. Choice C uses unsupported inference of disappearing entirely, not in Text 2. Choice D misreads by rejecting algorithms' influence, when Text 2 affirms it.
Text 1
Community gardens are often treated as quaint beautification projects, but their most important effect is social. When neighbors share tools, negotiate planting schedules, and swap harvests, they build trust that can spill into other forms of cooperation, from childcare to neighborhood safety. Even if a garden produces only a modest amount of food, it can still strengthen a community’s resilience by turning strangers into familiar faces with shared responsibilities.
Text 2
Social benefits are real, yet gardens should not be romanticized as a substitute for food policy. In many low-income neighborhoods, garden plots are too few, volunteer labor is unreliable, and the growing season is short. Residents may spend hours cultivating vegetables that supermarkets can provide cheaply year-round. If cities want resilience, they should pair gardens with investments in transit to grocery stores, farmers’ market subsidies, and living wages—changes that affect what people can buy, not just what they can grow.
Based on Text 2, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1’s emphasis on community gardens as a source of neighborhood resilience?
They would shift the focus to environmental education and claim that food access is unrelated to resilience.
They would qualify the claim by acknowledging social value but insisting that gardens are insufficient without broader economic and access-oriented policies.
They would argue that gardens are harmful because they discourage cooperation among neighbors.
They would agree completely and argue that gardens alone can solve food insecurity if expanded slightly.
Explanation
The question asks how the author of Text 2 would respond to Text 1’s emphasis on community gardens as a source of neighborhood resilience through social effects. Text 1 claims gardens build trust and cooperation, strengthening resilience even with modest food. Text 2 qualifies this by acknowledging social benefits but insisting gardens are insufficient without policies on transit, subsidies, and wages. The relationship is a qualification: Text 2 agrees on value but extends to broader needs. Choice C represents this by qualifying social value but insisting on economic policies, using Text 2's evidence on limitations like few plots and short seasons. Choice A misreads as complete agreement and overstates gardens solving insecurity, unsupported. Choice B flips positions by claiming harm, when Text 2 affirms benefits. Choice D shifts focus to education, ignoring Text 2's access emphasis.