Question 15·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Sociologist Mae Parks argues that the rapid rise of remote work will significantly reduce urban congestion. Citing commuting data from Tokyo and São Paulo, Parks claims that if just 20 percent of office employees adopt permanent remote schedules, traffic volume during peak hours could drop by as much as 12 percent. She contends that the resulting decrease in vehicular emissions will meaningfully improve air quality in dense cities.
Text 2
Urban planner Luis Ortega questions whether remote work will bring about the traffic relief Parks anticipates. Examining mobility patterns in three metropolitan areas where remote work expanded sharply after a major earthquake, Ortega found that while commuter traffic declined, overall vehicle miles traveled remained nearly constant: residents replaced daily office commutes with midday errands and suburban leisure trips. Ortega concludes that without complementary policies—such as congestion pricing or expanded public transit—the environmental gains Parks predicts will likely be minimal.
Based on the texts, how would Ortega (Text 2) most likely respond to Parks’s claim about remote work’s impact on urban traffic and emissions?
For cross-text connection questions, first identify the core claim or prediction in the first text, then summarize how the second author responds: do they support it, oppose it, or partly agree but limit or qualify it? Underline key phrases in the second text that show agreement (similar ideas) and key phrases that show disagreement (contradictions or reductions in impact). Finally, eliminate answer choices that introduce ideas not mentioned in either text (like new causes or consequences) or that flip the direction of the relationship, and choose the option that most precisely captures how the second author would respond to the first.
Hints
Clarify Parks’s prediction
Look back at Text 1 and underline what Parks says will happen to both traffic and emissions if more workers go remote.
Clarify Ortega’s conclusion
In Text 2, focus on what Ortega finds about commuter traffic versus total vehicle miles traveled, and what he says about the size of the environmental gains.
Compare the two perspectives
Ask yourself: Does Ortega fully agree with Parks, fully disagree, or partly agree but limit her claim? Then look for the option that best captures that specific kind of response.
Step-by-step Explanation
Pinpoint Parks’s main claim in Text 1
In Text 1, Parks argues that remote work will significantly reduce urban congestion and improve air quality. She cites data suggesting that if 20 percent of office workers go remote, peak-hour traffic could drop by up to 12 percent, and she claims this decrease in vehicle use will meaningfully reduce emissions in dense cities.
Summarize Ortega’s key evidence and conclusion in Text 2
In Text 2, Ortega looks at cities where remote work increased a lot after an earthquake. He finds that commuter traffic did decline, but overall vehicle miles traveled stayed nearly the same because people replaced commuting with other trips (midday errands, suburban leisure). He concludes that without extra policies, the environmental gains from remote work will likely be minimal.
Determine Ortega’s attitude toward Parks’s prediction
Compare their views: Parks predicts a meaningful reduction in emissions because of less commuting. Ortega agrees that commuting drops but shows that people still drive almost as much overall, so he thinks the environmental impact will be small. So his response would be: remote work helps a bit with commuting, but not enough to create the big emission cuts Parks expects.
Match this relationship to the answer choices
Now check each option against Ortega’s evidence.
- Choice 1 claims total emissions would increase because extra errands/leisure driving would more than offset reduced commuting; Ortega says overall miles stayed nearly constant and predicts minimal gains, not a worsening.
- Choice 2 says Ortega’s evidence proves remote work alone will meaningfully improve air quality; Ortega’s conclusion is the opposite (gains will likely be minimal without other policies).
- Choice 3 says only congestion pricing/transit—not remote work—can help; Ortega does say complementary policies are needed, but he also acknowledges remote work reduces commuter traffic, so he does not exclude remote work’s role entirely.
- Choice 4 accurately reflects Ortega’s point that commuting declines but overall driving does not fall enough to produce the sizable emission reductions Parks predicts.
Therefore, the correct answer is: "By arguing that although remote work reduces commuting trips, it is unlikely to cut overall driving sufficiently to yield the sizable emission reductions she predicts."