DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-Hard
DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-hard
DSAT R&W Practice Question-Craft and Structure-Cross-Text Connections-Hard is part of Craft and Structure : This section evaluates skills in understanding advanced academic vocabulary words from the context they are used in, analyzing an author’s rhetorical (persuasive writing) techniques and purpose, and synthesizing key ideas by making connections between multiple related texts on a topic.
Weightage : 20%
Subtopic: Cross-Text Connections
▶️ Answer/Explanation
Ans: B
Both texts criticize the narrow focus of current modernist scholarship:
- Text 1 critiques overemphasis on fragmented narratives at the expense of coherent ones like Bowen’s
- Text 2 argues the fragmentation/coherence binary has prevented examination of other stylistic elements
Option B captures this shared concern about limitations. Option A incorrectly suggests moving “beyond style,” Option C focuses only on Text 1’s rehabilitation concern, and Option D applies only to Text 2’s technological solution.
▶️ Answer/Explanation
Ans: C
Text 1 presents a single explanation (asteroid impact) for the Nadir crater’s formation, detailing its supporting evidence. Text 2 examines two alternative explanations (carbonate dissolution and salt withdrawal), evaluating their plausibility against Nadir’s observed features. Option C accurately captures this difference in approach. The other options misrepresent the texts: neither discusses researchers’ emotions (A), Text 1 focuses on features Nadir has not lacks (B), and Text 2 doesn’t argue against the impact explanation but rather evaluates alternatives (D).
Syllabus Classification: This question falls under “Cross-Text Connections” in the “Craft and Structure” category, as it requires comparing how two texts approach the same scientific topic differently.
Difficulty Note: Marked as “Hard” due to the need to carefully analyze and compare two complex scientific texts.
Question
Text 1
In 1916, H. Dugdale Sykes disputed claims that The Two Noble Kinsmen was coauthored by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher. Sykes felt Fletcherʼs contributions to the play were obvious—Fletcher had a distinct style in his other plays, so much so that lines with that style were considered sufficient evidence of Fletcherʼs authorship. But for the lines not deemed to be by Fletcher, Sykes felt that their depiction of women indicated that their author was not Shakespeare but Philip Massinger.
Text 2
Scholars have accepted The Two Noble Kinsmen as coauthored by Shakespeare since the 1970s: it appears in all major one-volume editions of Shakespeareʼs complete works. Though scholars disagree about who wrote what exactly, it is generally held that on the basis of style, Shakespeare wrote all of the first act and most of the last, while John Fletcher authored most of the three middle acts.
Based on the texts, both Sykes in Text 1 and the scholars in Text 2 would most likely agree with which statement?
A. John Fletcherʼs writing has a unique, readily identifiable style.
B. The women characters in John Fletcherʼs plays are similar to the women characters in Philip Massingerʼs plays.
C. The Two Noble Kinsmen belongs in one-volume compilations of Shakespeareʼs complete plays.
D. Philip Massingerʼs style in the first and last acts of The Two Noble Kinsmen is an homage to Shakespeareʼs style.
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans. A
Correct Answer: A
Rationale
Choice A is the best answer. Text 1 states that Sykes felt Fletcher’s contributions to the play were obvious because he had a distinct style in his other plays. Text 2 states that scholars generally agree “on the basis of
style” that Fletcher wrote most of the three middle acts. Both texts imply that Fletcher’s writing has a unique, readily identiable style that can be used to distinguish his work from others.
Choice B is incorrect. While Text 1 refers to the women in Massinger plays, neither text compares the women of Fletcher’s plays to the women of Massinger’s plays. Text 2 doesn’t mention Massinger at all. Choice C is incorrect. Text 1 states that Sykes disputed that Shakespeare coauthored the play, and implied that it was coauthored by Fletcher and Massinger instead. Sykes, therefore, would disagree that The Two Noble Kinsmen belongs in a Shakespeare compilation. Choice D is incorrect. Text 1 doesn’t suggest that Massinger was inspired by Shakespeare, and Text 2 doesn’t mention Massinger at all.
Question
Text 1
Growth in the use of novel nanohybrids—materials created from the conjugation of multiple distinct nanomaterials, such as iron oxide and gold nanomaterials conjugated for use in magnetic imaging—has outpaced
studies of nanohybridsʼ environmental risks. Unfortunately, risk evaluations based on nanohybridsʼ constituents are not reliable: conjugation may alter constituentsʼ physiochemical properties such that innocuous nanomaterials form a nanohybrid that is anything but.
Text 2
The potential for enhanced toxicity of nanohybrids relative to the toxicity of constituent nanomaterials has drawn deserved attention, but the effects of nanomaterial conjugation vary by case. For instance, it was recently shown that a nanohybrid of silicon dioxide and zinc oxide preserved the desired optical transparency of zinc oxide nanoparticles while mitigating the nanoparticlesʼ potential to damage DNA.
Based on the texts, how would the author of Text 2 most likely respond to the assertion in the underlined portion of Text 1?
A. By concurring that the risk described in Text 1 should be evaluated but emphasizing that the risk is more than offset by the potential benefits of nanomaterial conjugation
B. By arguing that the situation described in Text 1 may not be representative but conceding that the effects of nanomaterial conjugation are harder to predict than researchers had expected
C. By denying that the circumstance described in Text 1 is likely to occur but acknowledging that many aspects of nanomaterial conjugation are still poorly understood
D. By agreeing that the possibility described in Text 1 is a cause for concern but pointing out that nanomaterial conjugation does not inevitably produce that result
▶️Answer/Explanation
Ans. D
Correct Answer: D
Rationale
Choice D is the best answer. The author of Text 2 acknowledges that nanohybrids may be more toxic than their constituent parts, but also provides an example of a nanohybrid that has reduced toxicity compared to its
components: silicon dioxide and zinc oxide together have all the benets of zinc oxide nanoparticles without any of the DNA harm zinc oxide has on its own.
Choice A is incorrect. While the author of Text 2 gives an example of a nanohybrid that isn’t as toxic as its constituent parts, they don’t argue that the benet outweighs the risk. They merely argue that “the effects of
nanomaterial conjugation vary by case.” Choice B is incorrect. The author of Text 2 states that the effects of nanomaterial conjugation “vary by case,” and that the attention that their potential toxicity has drawn is
warranted. If the situation in Text 1 weren’t representative, then there would be less attention to the potential danger of these materials. Furthermore, neither passage suggests that researchers had expected that they
could predict the effects of nanomaterial conjugation. Choice C is incorrect. The author of Text 2 agrees that the potential toxicity of nanohybrids “has drawn deserved attention,” so they aren’t denying the problem.