SAT Reading & Writing · Cross-Text Connections

**Text 1** Physicians have long reasoned that compression stockings should help prevent dangerous blood clots in stroke patients who are…

Text 1
Physicians have long reasoned that compression stockings should help prevent dangerous blood clots in stroke patients who are largely immobile during their hospital recovery, since improving blood flow in the legs seems likely to reduce clot risk.

Text 2
A large randomized trial testing thigh-length compression stockings in immobile stroke patients found that the stockings did not provide the expected reduction in blood clots and were associated with skin problems in some patients.

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

Answer and explanation

Answer: A: By agreeing the underlying rationale sounds reasonable, while noting that a controlled trial failed to confirm the expected clinical benefit and identified an added risk.

Text 2 doesn't dispute that the reasoning in Text 1 sounds plausible; it reports that testing failed to confirm the expected benefit and surfaced a real downside. A captures exactly that measured response. B overstates Text 2 into a sweeping rejection of all prevention it doesn't state. C contradicts the entire premise both texts share, that clot risk is a genuine concern. D invents a comparative risk ranking neither text makes.

More Cross-Text Connections questions

All Cross-Text Connections questions

Learn the method behind questions like this one

The SAT Reading & Writing course teaches each tested skill through lessons, step-by-step solutions to sample problems, the complete study guide and full-length practice tests.