SAT Reading Strategy

Comparing Perspectives on the SAT

How to Master the Skill That Separates Good Scores from Great Ones

Track the author’s logic, locate evidence quickly, and sharpen your reasoning.

8 Min Read

Reading Skill

Evidence-First

5 Practice Qs

Anchor every answer in the exact line that proves it. If you cannot point to the words, it is not the answer.

Read the question, then scan for the line that directly supports a choice.
Match wording, not vibe: synonyms are fine, new ideas are not.
If two answers feel close, eliminate the one with any extra claim.

Although comparing perspectives questions make up only a small portion of the SAT Reading and Writing section, they carry a high impact on your score. Because each one requires you to work with two claims at the same time, these questions often separate mid-range scores from top scores. The encouraging reality is that this skill is both learnable and predictable, and once you recognize how the SAT builds these questions, you will wonder why they ever felt difficult.

Think of it this way. Imagine you're holding two transparent maps of the same city. Each map highlights different landmarks. Individually, each map is useful. But when you lay one on top of the other, you suddenly see which landmarks both maps agree on, which ones only appear on one, and where they mark the same location differently. Comparing perspectives is the act of overlaying two viewpoints and describing what you see.

That's exactly what the SAT asks you to do, and in this guide, you'll learn a repeatable four-step strategy to do it confidently on test day.

What Is This Skill?

At its core, comparing perspectives is a synthesis skill. You're not just reading one passage and answering questions about it, you're identifying what each source claims and then describing the relationship between those claims. That second part is where most students stumble. They can tell you what Author A thinks. They can tell you what Author B thinks. But when the question asks how those two positions relate, they freeze.

Let's define three terms you'll use constantly:

Claim, The specific position or argument a source puts forward. Not a topic, not a theme, a stance. "Climate change is accelerating" is a claim. "Climate change" is just a topic.
Perspective, The broader lens through which a source views the issue. This includes their claim, their reasoning, and the evidence they prioritize.
Point of friction, The exact spot where two perspectives diverge, overlap, or interact. This is what the SAT question is almost always asking you to name.

Common Comparing-Perspectives Question Stems

"How would Text 2 most likely respond to Text 1's claim that…?", This asks you to adopt one source's perspective and predict a reaction.
"Which statement best describes a difference between the two texts?", This asks you to name the point of friction directly.
"On which point do both texts agree?", This targets shared ground, often hidden beneath surface-level disagreements.
"The relationship between the two texts is best described as…", This asks you to label the overall dynamic between the viewpoints.

The SAT uses the same trap structures over and over. Once you name them, they lose their power:

One-Source Trap, The answer accurately describes one passage but says nothing about the relationship between them. It feels right because it's true, but it only answers half the question.
Too-Extreme Trap, The answer exaggerates the degree of disagreement. If two researchers differ on how much bilingual education helps, the trap says they "fundamentally oppose each other's methods."
Reversed Trap, The answer correctly identifies the relationship but assigns the wrong claim to the wrong author. Author A's position gets attributed to Author B, or vice versa.
Outside-the-Text Trap, The answer introduces an idea that seems related but was never stated or implied by either source. It sounds sophisticated, which is exactly why it's dangerous.

Here's the four-step process that top scorers use. It works on every comparing-perspectives question, regardless of subject matter. Practice it until it becomes automatic.

Tag Claim 1
After reading the first passage or viewpoint, complete this sentence in your head: "This author believes _____ because _____." Be specific. "This author believes that the printing press was the primary driver of the Reformation because it allowed ideas to spread faster than authorities could suppress them." If you can't fill in both blanks, reread.
Tag Claim 2
Do the same for the second source. Use the identical frame: "This author believes _____ because _____." Now you're holding two complete claims in your mind.
Name the Relationship
This is the critical step most students skip. Before you even look at the answer choices, label the relationship using one of these five categories:
- Direct disagreement, They reach opposite conclusions on the same question.
- Partial agreement, They share a premise or starting point but diverge on implications.
- Different emphasis, They discuss the same topic but focus on different aspects, and their views don't necessarily conflict.
- Extension, One author builds on or goes further than the other's argument.
- Qualification, One author accepts the other's general point but adds conditions, limits, or exceptions.
Evaluate Choices Against Your Label
Now, and only now, look at the answer choices. Find the one that matches your label. If you named the relationship as "qualification" and one choice says "Author 2 accepts Author 1's general premise but identifies a limitation," that's almost certainly your answer.

Metacognitive Checkpoint

Before you commit to an answer, ask yourself: "Am I describing one view, or the relationship between two?" If your reasoning only references one source, you've likely fallen for the One-Source Trap. Go back to Step 3.

Time budget: Aim for about 80–90 seconds on these higher-demand questions, but remember the section averages about 71 seconds per question overall. That means you should plan to move faster on simpler items (like many words-in-context or punctuation questions) to create this buffer.

Practice Comparing Perspectives with SAT-Style Questions

Note: The passages below are original, SAT-style constructions for practice; any names or details are fictionalized.

Work through these five questions using the four-step strategy. For each one, consciously tag both claims, name the relationship, and then evaluate the choices. The explanations will tell you which trap each wrong answer represents so you can sharpen your instincts.

Passage

Text 1: Historian Leila Hart argues that the printing press was the decisive catalyst of the Protestant Reformation. By enabling the rapid, large-scale reproduction of Martin Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, the press transformed what might have remained a local theological dispute into a continent-wide movement that church authorities could not contain. Text 2: Historian Mateo Rivera contends that while the printing press amplified the Reformation's reach, the movement's true fuel was widespread economic resentment toward the Catholic Church's taxation practices. Without pre-existing grievances among the merchant class, Rivera argues, printed pamphlets would have found no audience willing to act on their message.

easy

Which choice best describes the relationship between the two texts?

Passage

Text 1: A large review by cognitive scientist Priya Desai concluded that bilingual individuals demonstrate an executive-function advantage over monolinguals, particularly in tasks requiring the suppression of competing information. Desai attributed this advantage to the constant practice bilinguals get managing two active language systems. Text 2: A large-scale replication study led by Anton Lee found no statistically significant bilingual advantage on any of several executive-function measures. Lee argued that earlier positive findings, including Desai's, were likely artifacts of small sample sizes and publication bias favoring positive results.

easy

Based on the texts, how would Lee (Text 2) most likely respond to Desai's conclusion in Text 1?

Passage

Text 1: Economist Rafael Moreno argues that a universal basic income would provide a stable financial floor, allowing workers displaced by automation to retrain and re-enter the labor force without the desperation that leads to poor decision-making. The unconditional nature of UBI, he contends, is essential: means-testing creates bureaucratic barriers that delay assistance precisely when it is most needed. Text 2: Economist Lena Park advocates instead for an expanded negative income tax, which would supplement the earnings of low-income workers rather than replacing income entirely. Park agrees that displaced workers need financial support during transitions but argues that tying benefits to earned income preserves work incentives and costs significantly less than a universal program.

medium

On which point do the authors of both texts agree?

Passage

Text 1: Marine biologist Elena Cruz argues that deep-sea mining of polymetallic nodules represents the most environmentally responsible path to sourcing the metals required for renewable energy technologies. Because the nodules sit on the ocean floor in vast, sparsely inhabited abyssal plains, Cruz contends that harvesting them would disrupt far less biodiversity per unit of metal extracted than conventional terrestrial mining operations. Text 2: Ecologist Marisol Ahn counters that the deep-sea ecosystems surrounding polymetallic nodules, while low in biomass, harbor species found nowhere else on Earth. Ahn argues that the "biodiversity per unit of metal" framework overlooks the irreversibility of the damage: unlike a terrestrial mine site, which can be partially restored within decades, a disturbed abyssal plain may require centuries or millennia to recover, if it recovers at all.

medium

Based on the texts, Ahn's response to Cruz is best characterized as

Passage

Text 1: Art critic Nadia Flores contends that AI-generated images, regardless of their visual sophistication, cannot constitute genuine art because art requires intentional human decision-making at every stage of creation. A painter choosing a particular brushstroke or a photographer framing a specific angle exercises creative agency in a way that typing a text prompt into an algorithm does not, Flores argues. Text 2: Digital media scholar Theo Martin argues that the value of art has always been determined by its reception rather than its process of creation. If a viewer experiences genuine emotional or intellectual engagement with an AI-generated image, Martin contends, then the image functions as art in every way that matters, regardless of whether a human hand or an algorithm produced it.

medium

Which choice best describes a difference in how the authors of the two texts define what qualifies as art?

Key Takeaways for Comparing Perspectives

Always name both claims before looking at answer choices. Use the frame "This author believes _____ because _____" for each source. If you can't fill it in, you're not ready to answer the question yet.
Label the relationship, not just the individual positions. The five categories, direct disagreement, partial agreement, different emphasis, extension, and qualification, cover virtually every comparing-perspectives question on the SAT.
Check yourself with one question: "Am I describing one view or the relationship between two?" If your reasoning only touches one passage, you've likely fallen for the One-Source Trap. Redirect yourself to Step 3.
Trap answers are predictable. Once you can name the four trap types, One-Source, Too-Extreme, Reversed, and Outside-the-Text, you can eliminate wrong answers faster than you can confirm right ones. That's a powerful testing advantage.

Conclusion: The Core Rule for Comparing Perspectives

Comparing perspectives is more than an SAT skill, it's a thinking skill you'll use for the rest of your life. In college, you'll read competing research papers and need to articulate how they relate. In a career, you'll sit in meetings where two colleagues propose different strategies, and the person who can clearly name the point of agreement and the point of friction becomes the most valuable voice in the room. In civic life, you'll encounter political arguments and need to separate genuine disagreement from manufactured outrage.

The strategy you practiced here, tag, tag, name, evaluate, works in all of those contexts, not just on a standardized test. But right now, it also happens to be one of the most efficient ways to pick up points on the SAT Reading and Writing section.

Start small. The next time you read two articles about the same topic, pause and say out loud: "Author A believes _____. Author B believes _____. The relationship is _____." It'll feel mechanical at first. Within a few weeks, it'll feel like the obvious thing to do. And on test day, it'll feel like an unfair advantage, the kind you earned.

About the Instructor

Thomas Meli

Founder, Deep Test Prep

"Viewing the SAT as a transformative rite of passage, my approach builds self-awareness, sharpens critical thinking, and fosters a love of learning that supports students far beyond test day."

With over 20 years of teaching and 500+ hours of training in compassionate communication, Thomas uses scientifically proven methods to help students target and achieve their SAT goals.