A question about how one author would respond tests whether you can connect two texts' claims and reasons. Find who answers whom, then put each text's claim in a few words. Test each part of the claim: necessary means it must be present, while sufficient means it's enough on its own. Use the responding author's findings and limits to decide what they accept and question. Doubting a claim isn't enough if the doubt rests on a reason the author never gives.
Hints
- Hint 1
Park’s claim has two parts: necessary and not sufficient. Put each part into your own words, then find the results in Text 2 that test it.
- Hint 2
Compare proposal variety and patent novelty across departments with different participation levels and meeting formats. What does each comparison measure?
- Hint 3
Reread Lowe’s final sentence and check how strongly the findings can be stated. What does that warning leave uncertain?
Step-by-step
Test both parts, then weigh the warning
Step 1Split Park’s claim
Park calls wider participation necessary but not sufficient for innovation, so Lowe must address both parts. What does each mean? Necessary means innovation needs broad participation, while not sufficient means broad participation alone doesn't guarantee innovation. A usual benefit isn't the same as a requirement.
- Step 2
Check whether broad participation is required
Could departments innovate with narrow participation? Departments involving a smaller share of employees produced equally varied proposals when they had contributors from multiple specialties. Among departments with comparable variety, those holding synthesis sessions produced more novel patents regardless of whether participation had been broad or narrow. Innovation wasn't limited to departments with broad participation, which challenges necessity. Broader participation generally went with more varied proposals, but that pattern doesn't make it required.
- Step 3
Check whether participation alone is enough
What about Park’s claim that participation alone isn't enough? Among departments with comparable proposal variety, those holding synthesis sessions produced more novel patents, but departments with broad participation but no such sessions did not. Lowe would agree with only part of Park’s claim. The conceptual variety is sufficient for innovation choice skips the synthesis sessions that separated the patent outcomes.
- Step 4
Match the strength of the response
Does Lowe’s final warning cancel these comparisons? His study is observational: departments chose their own formats rather than being assigned them. Because other differences could have contributed to the patent outcomes, the study can't prove what caused the gains, but Lowe can still question whether broad participation is required. The choice using questioning and consistent with gives a cautious response instead of claiming that Lowe proved why innovation happened. Choice C.