Compare two texts without merging their claims
| English | 中文 | Pinyin · 拼音 |
|---|---|---|
| interpretation/ɪnˌtɜːprɪˈteɪʃn/ | 解释 | jiě shì |
| cross-text relationship/krɒs tekst rɪˈleɪʃənʃɪp/ | 跨文本关系 | kuà wén běn guān xì |
A decision before an answer
- Two authors can agree that a model is useful while disagreeing about how widely it should be applied.
- Your goal: Identify each author’s claim and degree of certainty separately.
Read the relationship
- Build a brief claim record for each text: topic, position, evidence and limit. Keep the speakers separate. If Text 1 reports a possibility and Text 2 reports a concern, a response that makes both certain has altered both positions.
- Explain agreement, disagreement or qualification on the same issue.
Text 1: maps helped navigation in one park. Text 2: the result may differ in larger parks. Their relationship is:
Text 2 concerns scope, not denial of the original result.
Use the defining rule
- Compare claims about the same relationship, not just shared vocabulary. Agreement may concern a benefit while disagreement concerns generalisation. One text may supply evidence absent from the other rather than directly contradict it. Identify exactly which proposition is supported, challenged or narrowed.
- Predict one author’s response using their stated reasoning.
One author accepts a measured increase but questions its cause. This is:
Observation and explanation can be evaluated separately.
Check the conditions
- When asked how one author would respond, use that author’s reasoning and scope. Do not choose your preferred opinion or a compromise that neither text supports. A response can acknowledge the other text’s evidence while resisting its broad conclusion if that matches the stated limitation.
- Predict one author’s response using their stated reasoning.
Original Text 1: “A trial in one gallery found that longer labels increased the time visitors spent at exhibits, suggesting that detailed labels can promote engagement.” Original Text 2: “Time spent reading does not necessarily indicate deeper engagement; visitors may be trying to understand unclear wording.” Text 2 would question whether time alone supports Text 1’s engagement inference, not deny that the trial recorded more time.
Before comparing, keep each author’s ____ separate.
Attributing one author’s view to the other distorts the comparison.
Apply the task format
- Check every clause of the answer. A choice may describe Text 1 correctly and misrepresent Text 2, or identify a real disagreement then exaggerate its importance. Trace each assertion back to its source. The final choice must accurately connect both texts, not merely summarise one.
- Predict one author’s response using their stated reasoning.
Disagreeing with an interpretation is different from denying the observation. Keep each author’s evidence and conclusion distinct.
Which answer fits this case?
Identify each author’s claim and degree of certainty separately
Shared subject matter guarantees that two authors agree.
They may interpret the same subject differently.
Keep the distinctions
- cross-text relationship 跨文本关系 — How claims in two texts support, challenge or qualify one another.
- interpretation 解释 — The meaning or conclusion assigned to an observation.
- Identify each author’s claim and degree of certainty separately.
- Explain agreement, disagreement or qualification on the same issue.
- Predict one author’s response using their stated reasoning.
Match each term with its precise meaning in this lesson.
Keep the distinctions stated in the teaching example.
Put this lesson’s reasoning or event sequence in order.
The order follows the stated process; check each stage before the next.