Question 2·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In a memo to our board, I argued that our shift to flexible remote work has made teams more productive. In our most recent quarterly survey, 74% of employees reported “accomplishing more in less time,” and many noted fewer interruptions. Turnover also fell 15% year over year after the policy change. Taken together, these indicators suggest that remote work increases output per employee and should remain our default.
Text 2
Self-reported productivity is a weak proxy for actual output, and lower turnover can reflect schedule convenience rather than work accomplished. In my analysis of 120 software firms that went remote between 2020 and 2022, individual code commits rose, but cross-module bug fixes and multi-team code reviews declined by double digits. Remote arrangements may boost solitary task throughput while hindering collaboration—a dimension not captured by surveys or retention data.
Question
Based on the texts, how would the researcher in Text 2 most likely respond to the evidence presented in Text 1?
For cross-text questions, first summarize in your own words what Text 1 is claiming and which evidence it uses, then identify how Text 2 views that same type of claim or evidence (does it support, qualify, or challenge it?). Next, look for key phrases that show evaluation—words like “weak proxy,” “however,” or “not captured”—and use those to predict how the second author would respond to the first. Finally, eliminate choices that contradict clear statements in either text, especially options that flip agreement into disagreement or exaggerate what either author says.
Hints
Compare what each text uses as evidence
List the specific indicators of productivity that Text 1 uses, and then note what kinds of data the researcher in Text 2 talks about.
Focus on how Text 2 evaluates surveys and turnover
In Text 2, look closely at the sentences about self-reported productivity and lower turnover. Does the researcher fully trust these measures, or suggest a problem with them?
Look for what’s missing in Text 1’s measures
Text 2 introduces information about collaboration (like cross-module bug fixes and multi-team code reviews). Ask yourself: does the evidence in Text 1 include this kind of information, or leave it out?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what counts as “evidence” in Text 1
Text 1 is a memo claiming remote work makes teams more productive. To support this, it cites:
- A quarterly survey where 74% of employees say they are “accomplishing more in less time” (self-reports of productivity).
- A 15% drop in turnover (fewer employees leaving). The memo concludes that these indicators show remote work increases output and should remain the default.
See how Text 2 views self-reports and turnover
Text 2 directly comments on these kinds of measures:
- It says “Self-reported productivity is a weak proxy for actual output”—so it doubts that surveys truly measure how much work is done.
- It adds that “lower turnover can reflect schedule convenience rather than work accomplished”—so retention might be about comfort, not productivity. This means the researcher is skeptical of treating surveys and turnover as strong proof of productivity gains.
Notice what additional dimension Text 2 measures
Text 2 brings in data from 120 software firms and looks beyond just individual output:
- It finds individual code commits rose (more solitary work units).
- But cross-module bug fixes and multi-team code reviews declined by double digits—these are collaboration metrics. The researcher then says remote work “may boost solitary task throughput while hindering collaboration—a dimension not captured by surveys or retention data.” So he highlights that the indicators used in Text 1 miss collaboration effects.
Match this perspective to the answer choice
Putting the texts together, the researcher in Text 2 would respond to Text 1 by saying: relying on self-reported productivity and turnover ignores important information about collaboration, so the evidence for increased productivity is incomplete. This matches choice A: “By arguing that self-reports and attrition figures omit measures of collaboration, so the evidence is incomplete.”