Question 35·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
In debates over remote work, we often count what is easiest to see: tickets closed, documents edited, code merged. These computable tasks may rise when people work from home, where fewer interruptions can help with focused execution. But the harder-to-measure engine of long-term progress is idea formation, which thrives on unplanned encounters—someone overhearing a problem at lunch, a question tossed across a hallway. Video calls rarely reproduce that serendipity; they are scheduled, bounded, and agenda-driven. A fully remote model may therefore boost near-term throughput while thinning the pipeline of novel proposals. For this reason, I favor hybrid schedules with regular in-person days to seed cross-pollination without abandoning the concentration benefits of remote work.
Text 2
Researchers tracked a software firm before and after a shift to fully remote work. Routine indicators rose: code commits per engineer increased, and help-desk tickets were resolved more quickly. At the same time, signals of cross-team exchange waned: design proposals that drew contributors from multiple departments declined, citations of internal white papers fell, and patent applications dipped. Message logs also showed fewer discussion threads involving more than two departments. Later, when the firm instituted "anchor days"—scheduled in-office days for mixed teams—routine output remained high while cross-team proposals partially rebounded. The authors caution that the shift coincided with a broader crisis and that one firm cannot settle the question.
Question
Based on the texts, which choice best describes what the author of Text 1 would most likely say about the study described in Text 2?
For cross-text connection questions, first summarize each text’s main point in one sentence, especially any cause–effect claims (for example, how remote work affects different kinds of productivity). Then ask, “If the author of Text 1 read Text 2, would they see it as support, a challenge, or something to ignore?” Look for specific patterns that both texts mention (like routine output vs. innovation), and use those to eliminate choices that contradict either text’s details or tone. Finally, pick the option that best captures both the relationship (support/contrast/qualification) and the specific content (what goes up, what goes down, what the author recommends).
Hints
Clarify Text 1’s position
Before looking at the choices, restate in your own words what Text 1 says about how remote work affects routine tasks versus idea formation and why the author prefers hybrid schedules.
Track what went up and what went down in Text 2
In Text 2, separate the outcomes into two groups: routine measures (like code commits, ticket resolution) and cross-team or innovative activities (like multi-department proposals, patents). What pattern do you see?
Think about agreement or disagreement
Would the author of Text 1 mostly agree with the overall pattern reported in the study, mostly disagree with it, or reject it as useless? Focus on whether the study’s results match the concerns and solutions in Text 1.
Eliminate answers that contradict the texts
Rule out any answer that says innovation improved under full remote work, that cross-department interaction increased, or that the study should be ignored completely—do those claims fit what Text 2 actually reports or what Text 1 would likely value?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify Text 1’s main argument
Read Text 1 and summarize the author’s key claim about remote work.
- The author contrasts computable tasks (tickets, documents, code) with idea formation (innovation) that depends on unplanned, in-person encounters.
- They say remote work can raise computable tasks but weakens serendipitous collaboration that leads to long-term innovation.
- Because of this, the author favors hybrid schedules with regular in-person days to keep both focus and cross-pollination of ideas.
Summarize what the study in Text 2 found
Now look at Text 2 and note what changed when the firm moved to fully remote work.
- Routine indicators went up: more code commits per engineer, faster help-desk ticket resolution.
- Signs of cross-team exchange went down: fewer multi-department design proposals, fewer citations of internal white papers, fewer patent applications, fewer discussion threads involving more than two departments.
- When the firm added "anchor days" (mixed teams in-office on set days), routine output stayed high, and cross-team proposals partially rebounded.
- The researchers do add cautions: one firm, plus a broader crisis at the same time.
Connect Text 2’s results to Text 1’s viewpoint
Ask: If the author of Text 1 read those results, how would they react?
- Text 2 shows that remote work boosts routine, measurable output and reduces cross-team innovation and collaboration signals.
- This closely matches Text 1’s concern that remote work helps near-term throughput but “thins the pipeline” of novel proposals that depend on serendipitous encounters.
- The rebound of cross-team proposals after in-office anchor days supports Text 1’s belief that hybrid schedules help idea formation.
- So the author of Text 1 would likely see the study as supporting their claims, even if the study’s authors themselves are cautious about overgeneralizing.
Match that combined idea to the best answer choice
Now compare each choice to the combined picture from both texts:
- We want a choice saying the study shows remote work increases routine productivity but harms cross-team collaboration/innovation, aligning with a pro-hybrid stance and treating the study as useful (not worthless) evidence.
- Only one choice captures this: it says the study provides empirical support for the claim that remote setups can boost routine productivity while diminishing the serendipitous collaboration that fuels innovation.
Therefore, the correct answer is: It provides empirical support for the claim that remote arrangements can boost routine productivity while diminishing the serendipitous collaboration that fuels innovation.