Two Texts, One Claim: Reading Against the Grain
You are given two short Korean texts in a Reading and Responding item. Text A is a blog post arguing that students should be allowed to use smartphones during breaks, citing stress relief and emergency contact with parents. Text B is a school newsletter stating that phone use during breaks was trialled for one term, that reported stress levels did not change measurably, and that two incidents of lost property occurred. The question asks: 'To what extent does Text B support the argument in Text A?' A classmate writes: 'Text B supports Text A because it mentions stress.' You have 12 minutes for this item and three more items to complete.
1. Diagnose the classmate's error and explain what the question is actually asking.
Read the worked answer
The classmate has committed a keyword-matching error: the presence of the word 스트레스 in both texts has been treated as agreement, when the question asks about evidential support, not shared vocabulary.
What Text A claims: phone use during breaks reduces stress and provides safety benefits. This is a causal claim.
What Text B reports: stress levels did not change measurably during the trial. This is a null result. A null result does not support a causal claim of reduction - it undermines it. Text B also reports lost property, which weighs against Text A's implicit cost-free framing.
What the question is really asking: not 'do the texts overlap?' but 'does the evidence in B corroborate the causal mechanism in A?' The answer is that B offers no support for the stress claim and counter-evidence on the practical side.
The general principle: In comparative reading items, identify the type of claim in the first text (causal, normative, predictive) and then ask whether the second text supplies evidence of the right type. Shared topic is not shared position.
2. How should you allocate your remaining time across this item and the three others, given the comparative item is worth the same marks as each single-text item?
Read the worked answer
Equal marks do not mean equal time. Allocate by difficulty per mark, not by mark value alone.
Diagnosis of this item: Comparative items require reading two texts, identifying each position, and reasoning about the relationship. That is roughly double the cognitive load of a single-text item for the same marks. However, the answer here is short - a judgement plus two pieces of evidence - so the writing time is modest.
Suggested allocation for 12 minutes total:
- Comparative item: 4–5 minutes (skim both, note A's claim and B's findings, write two sentences of judgement with one quote each).
- Remaining three items: 7–8 minutes, roughly 2.5 minutes each.
Reasoning: Single-text items are usually answerable by locating a specific phrase and interpreting it - a faster, more mechanical process. The comparative item's risk is not length but misreading the relationship, which the keyword trap exploits. Spending slightly more here protects the marks most at risk.
Guard against over-investment: If you exceed 5 minutes on the comparative item, cap it. Write your judgement with the evidence you have and move on. A perfect comparative answer at the cost of two rushed single-text answers is a net loss.
Practical rule: Answer the comparative item second, not first - do the quickest single-text item first to bank marks and settle your reading rhythm.