Four writers discuss the same proposal. Two say it has merit. One supports it only as a temporary trial; the other wants it adopted permanently. If a question asks which writer agrees with A about long-term adoption, a shared positive word is not enough.
Cambridge C1 Advanced Reading and Use of English Part 6 is Cross-text multiple matching. The current official format presents four short texts and four questions. You read across all four texts to compare opinions and attitudes. Each correct answer carries two marks.
The task differs from C1 Part 8. Part 8 matches ten prompts to relevant elements in one text or several texts. Part 6 makes the relationship between writers central: who agrees with whom, who challenges a view, and which apparent agreement disappears when scope or degree is checked.
Use the Cambridge C1/C2 vocabulary hub for the wider route and Exam English for all exam paths.
Build a position card for each writer
Summarise each text under the same headings:
| Field | Question |
|---|---|
| core position | What does the writer ultimately support or reject? |
| reason | What evidence or principle drives that view? |
| scope | Which group, stage, or condition does it cover? |
| degree | Is the view tentative, qualified, or firm? |
| reference | Which other claim or writer is being answered? |
Keep the wording neutral. If a writer says a measure is largely effective, record “mostly effective, exceptions remain,” not simply “positive.” If a writer calls an explanation plausible, record “reasonable possibility, not established.” These distinctions make comparison possible.
Agreement must share a proposition
Writers do not agree merely because both praise something. They must endorse the same proposition.
Writer A: “The trial should continue for another month so that seasonal effects can be measured.”
Writer B: “The early results justify keeping the system permanently.”
Both favour continuation, but they disagree about evidential status and duration. A supports further testing; B thinks the decision is ready.
Turn a comparison into a complete sentence: “A and B both think ______.” If you cannot fill the blank without using a vague word such as good or useful, the agreement may be superficial.
Infer the writer's view from stated evidence
To infer is to reach a conclusion from evidence. In Part 6, a writer's position may be expressed through examples, contrast, or evaluation rather than a direct sentence beginning I believe.
“The promised savings never appeared, while support requests doubled within three weeks.”
You can infer that the writer is critical of the change. You cannot infer that the writer opposes every future version, unless the surrounding text widens the claim.
Separate the inference from your own response to the topic. The question asks how the writers relate, not which one is right.
Ostensibly marks a surface account
Ostensibly means seemingly or according to the stated appearance, often while leaving open a different underlying reality or motive.
“The redesign was ostensibly intended to simplify booking, but it also moved several services behind a paid tier.”
The writer presents simplification as the represented purpose and signals that it may not be the whole explanation. The word does not by itself prove deception. An option saying the writer accuses the designers of lying overreaches. A safer paraphrase is the writer questions whether the stated purpose tells the full story.
Apparently can overlap with ostensibly, so do not invent an absolute contrast. What matters is the text's relation between surface purpose and the alternative it introduces.
Largely is agreement with room left over
Largely means for the most part. If Writer C says, “I largely share A's analysis,” C does not endorse every element of A's view.
Look immediately for the remainder:
“I largely share A's concern about access, though the cost objection seems overstated.”
C agrees about access and departs on cost. A question restricted to access may license agreement. A question about the whole critique may not.
Similarly, mainly, in most respects, and broadly can mark substantial but incomplete alignment. Do not upgrade them to total agreement.
Understanding is only the first step.
Lyra Practice helps you retrieve and use high-value workplace expressions in realistic situations until they feel natural.
Start a practice session →On balance identifies the final weighting
On balance presents a judgment after competing factors have been considered together.
“The additional checks slow registration, but they have reduced duplicate records. On balance, I would retain them.”
The final position is support, not neutrality. The writer concedes a cost and judges the benefit greater. Compare that with:
“The checks reduce duplication, but the delay excludes users with limited access. I would remove them.”
The writers recognize the same trade-off but weight it differently. Part 6 often tests this distinction: shared evidence does not guarantee shared judgment.
Reference decides who is being answered
Words such as this view, that objection, the former, and such confidence point to a prior proposition. Resolve the reference before comparing attitudes.
“Some advocates assume that more choice always improves access. That confidence seems premature.”
The writer criticises the assumption, not choice in every form. If you reduce the sentence to “writer dislikes choice,” you lose the referent and broaden the stance.
When a pronoun or phrase could point to two claims, treat the reference as unresolved until the next sentence supplies evidence. Do not choose the most convenient antecedent.
Worked original four-writer set
These short texts are original practice, not Cambridge exam material. Four reviewers discuss a town's plan to replace printed cultural guides with an app.
Writer A
The app is a plausible way to keep listings current, and its audio descriptions are welcome. Yet the council has treated phone access as universal when its own survey shows otherwise. Printed guides should remain available during a longer trial.
Writer B
Critics focus on the small number of residents without smartphones, but printed guides become outdated almost immediately. On balance, the app's speed and lower revision cost justify a complete change next month.
Writer C
I largely agree with A that the app has useful features and that paper should remain for now. I am less persuaded by the access argument: the more salient problem is that the search function frequently hides smaller events.
Writer D
The change is ostensibly about current information, but it also lets the council transfer printing costs to users. B is right that paper dates quickly. That does not justify removing it before the app's search failures and data charges have been addressed.
Question 1
Which writer explicitly says that printed guides should remain available for now while also recognizing useful features in the app?
Answer: C. C explicitly retains paper for now and agrees that the app has useful features. D also opposes immediate removal, but its paragraph focuses on unresolved search failures, data charges, and cost transfer; it does not make the two-part judgment named in the question.
Question 2
Which writer agrees with B about a disadvantage of paper but rejects B's conclusion?
Answer: D. D accepts that paper becomes outdated and then says this does not justify immediate removal. This is agreement on evidence combined with disagreement on the decision.
Question 3
Which writer thinks a design problem matters more than the access issue emphasized by A?
Answer: C. C explicitly calls the search function the more salient problem. B minimizes the access issue but does not identify the search problem.
Question 4
Which writer questions whether the official purpose is the whole explanation?
Answer: D. Ostensibly introduces the public-information purpose, while the cost-transfer point supplies a possible additional motive. D does not prove that the stated purpose is false.
Use an agreement matrix
After reading, compare writers by proposition rather than by general tone:
| Proposition | A | B | C | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| app has benefits | yes | yes | yes | implied |
| paper dates quickly | not discussed | yes | not discussed | yes |
| keep paper temporarily | yes | no | yes | conditionally yes |
| access is main concern | yes | no | no | one of several |
| stated purpose may be incomplete | no | no | no | yes |
The matrix makes partial agreement visible. It also stops one positive sentence from colouring your memory of the whole text.
Degree and polarity checks
Small words frequently decide the match:
- may does not equal will;
- not entirely convincing does not equal wholly false;
- except in remote areas restricts the group;
- for now restricts the time;
- even if can concede a point without accepting a conclusion;
- nevertheless preserves a contrast and shifts attention to what follows;
- largely leaves a remainder;
- on balance gives the final weighting after a trade-off.
Copy the limiter into your position card. A summary without it may reverse the comparison.
Common Part 6 traps
- Matching two writers because both sound positive or negative.
- Treating agreement on a fact as agreement on a recommendation.
- Ignoring whether a view is temporary, conditional, or permanent.
- Upgrading largely agrees to complete agreement.
- Reading ostensibly as proof of dishonesty.
- Attaching this objection to the nearest noun instead of the relevant claim.
- Combining one writer's reason with another writer's conclusion.
- Answering from personal knowledge of the topic.
- Confusing cross-text comparison with Part 8's prompt-to-person scanning.
Controlled comparison
Writer E says: “The scheme could reduce delays, but only a larger trial can establish whether it works across the region.”
Writer F says: “Because the first site reduced delays, regional adoption should begin immediately.”
Do they agree?
They agree that the scheme has evidence of a possible benefit. They do not agree about whether that evidence is sufficient for regional adoption. E's could and requirement for a larger trial limit the claim; F treats the first result as decision-ready.
Now rewrite their common ground in one sentence and their disagreement in another. Avoid both like the scheme, which loses the tested distinction.
A repeatable practice routine
Use an official sample Part 6. Make four position cards before answering any question. For each question, underline the exact proposition being compared: fact, reason, judgment, or recommendation. Then identify the scope and degree.
After checking the key, explain every wrong choice in relational language: “B shares the evidence but not the conclusion,” “C agrees only about the first stage,” or “D answers a different objection.” This is more useful than noting that the wrong answer was a distractor.
Finally, change one limiter in each writer's text—may to will, largely to entirely, for now to permanently—and observe how the agreement matrix changes. That exercise trains the vocabulary decisions Part 6 actually demands.
Sources
- C1 Advanced exam format — Cambridge English
- C1 Advanced preparation and sample tests — Cambridge English
- C1 Advanced handbook for teachers — Cambridge English
Related
- Cambridge C1 Multiple Matching: Paraphrase Vocabulary
- Cambridge C1 Gapped Text: Cohesion and Reference Vocabulary
- Cambridge C1 Writing Part 1 Essay Vocabulary
- Cambridge C1 Vocabulary List: Collocations, Phrasal Verbs, and Word Families
Lyra Practice is not affiliated with or endorsed by Cambridge University Press & Assessment.