Question 27·Hard·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In a recent commentary on software development cultures, technologist Priya Natarajan argues that the most vibrant open-source projects arise "from the bottom up, not the boardroom." According to Natarajan, volunteers driven by curiosity and principle, rather than by quarterly targets, are uniquely able to identify unexpected problems and devise elegant solutions. She contends that when corporations attempt to spearhead open-source initiatives, the resulting hierarchies—approval chains, performance reviews, and marketing deadlines—dampen the improvisational spirit that makes such projects innovative. While she concedes that companies can donate code or fund infrastructure, she maintains that the origins of a project determine whether it will develop the "collective improvisation" that distinguishes the best open-source work.
Text 2
Economist Leo Barron, surveying 40 high-profile repositories, reaches a different conclusion. His study shows that nearly half of the most widely adopted open-source tools in machine learning were launched inside firms and released only later to the public. Barron claims that corporate resources—dedicated engineers, test suites, and user-support teams—can establish a reliable foundation that volunteer communities then refine. He acknowledges that corporate goals shape early design choices, but he insists that once the code is public, the "creative churn" of external contributors quickly overtakes initial constraints. In Barron’s view, the origin of a project is less important than the permeability of its governance structures after release.
Question
Based on the texts, which choice best describes how the author of Text 1 would most likely respond to Barron’s position in Text 2 regarding corporate-initiated open-source projects?
For cross-text questions, first separately summarize each author’s main claim in one simple sentence, then underline (mentally or on paper) key attitude words about the topic (positive, negative, or mixed). Next, identify the specific issue the question targets—here, corporate-initiated projects—and ask how one author would likely react to the other’s claim on that narrow point. Finally, scan the choices for the one that captures both the overlap (where they might agree) and the conflict (where they clearly differ), and eliminate options that are more extreme or one-sided than anything stated in the texts.
Hints
Locate the key disagreement
Reread the final sentence of Text 1 and the final two sentences of Text 2. How do the authors differ on how important a project’s origin is?
Check each author’s attitude toward corporations
Ask yourself: Does the author of Text 1 think corporations are completely bad for open-source, completely necessary, or somewhere in between? Use that to eliminate extreme answer choices.
Look for partial agreement plus critique
Think about whether Text 1’s author would admit any benefits of corporate involvement while still raising serious concerns. Which option shows both a limited concession and a clear warning?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify each author’s main claim
First, summarize what each text is arguing.
- Text 1 (Natarajan): The “most vibrant” open-source projects come “from the bottom up, not the boardroom.” Volunteer-driven projects, not corporate-led ones, best foster “collective improvisation” and innovation. Corporate hierarchies dampen the improvisational spirit.
- Text 2 (Barron): Many successful tools do start inside companies. Corporate resources create a strong foundation, and then open-source contributors add creativity later. He thinks the origin of a project is less important than how open its governance is after release.
Focus on how each author views corporate-initiated projects
Now zoom in specifically on projects that begin inside companies.
- Text 1: She “concedes that companies can donate code or fund infrastructure,” but she says when corporations “attempt to spearhead” projects, corporate hierarchies “dampen the improvisational spirit.” She also says the origins of a project determine whether it will develop “collective improvisation.” So she is skeptical of corporate-led origins, even though she admits corporations can contribute.
- Text 2: He finds that “nearly half” of top tools started in firms and argues that corporate resources provide a “reliable foundation.” He believes once the code is public, the “creative churn” of outside contributors overtakes early corporate constraints, so origin doesn’t matter much.
Predict how Text 1’s author would react to Text 2
Ask: If Natarajan read Barron’s claims, what would she likely say?
- She would likely agree somewhat that corporations can contribute useful support.
- But she would disagree with his idea that the project’s origin is less important. She explicitly argues the opposite: that origins determine whether a project develops “collective improvisation.”
- She would also worry that corporate governance and hierarchies suppress the creative, improvisational qualities that she values in volunteer communities.
Match that predicted reaction to an answer choice
Now find the choice that shows partial agreement (corporate projects can be useful) plus a warning that corporate-led structures undermine the kind of creativity Text 1 celebrates.
The option that does this is:
By conceding that corporate-led projects can yield useful code but warning that their governance rarely achieves the creative spontaneity of volunteer communities