Question 47·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Business columnist Dara Nguyen argues that companies should make remote work permanent. According to Nguyen, multiple surveys show that employees complete more tasks per hour when working from home, and the elimination of daily commuting significantly lowers each worker’s carbon footprint. Because remote work allegedly boosts both productivity and sustainability, Nguyen concludes that any firm that refuses to adopt the policy is acting against its own interests.
Text 2
Labor economist Miguel Ortiz cautions that the effects of remote work are more complicated. Ortiz notes that while some employees report higher output at home, others struggle without in-person collaboration, and several large-scale studies link prolonged remote work to slower product innovation. He also points out that household energy use typically rises when people stay home all day, which may cancel out or even exceed the emissions saved from reduced commuting.
Based on the texts, how would Ortiz (Text 2) most likely respond to Nguyen’s (Text 1) recommendation that companies adopt permanent remote work?
For cross-text connection questions, first summarize each author’s main claim in a short phrase (for example, “Nguyen: remote work is good for productivity and the environment so all firms should adopt it; Ortiz: results are mixed and sometimes bad”). Next, decide the relationship between the authors (agree, disagree, or complicate/qualify). Then, go through the choices and eliminate any that contradict what either author explicitly says or that introduce new priorities or topics (like technology or preferences) that are not central in the texts. Finally, select the remaining choice that best captures both the content and the tone of the second author’s likely response to the first.
Hints
Figure out Nguyen’s stance first
Restate in your own words what Nguyen is recommending and why she thinks companies should follow her recommendation. Is her view limited or universal?
Look for how Ortiz complicates the picture
In Text 2, underline phrases that show when remote work helps and when it causes problems. Pay attention to both productivity and environmental effects.
Decide if Ortiz agrees, disagrees, or partially agrees
Ask yourself: does Ortiz fully support making remote work permanent, completely reject it, or warn that it depends on circumstances?
Test each option against both texts
For each answer choice, check: Does it fit what Ortiz actually says, and does it connect directly to Nguyen’s reasons (productivity and sustainability)?
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify Nguyen’s main claim (Text 1)
Nguyen argues that companies should make remote work permanent.
- She says employees complete more tasks per hour at home.
- She also says less commuting lowers each worker’s carbon footprint.
- Because of these two positives (productivity and sustainability), she concludes that any firm that refuses remote work is acting against its own interests. So her view is strong and sweeping: remote work is good for productivity and the environment, so all companies should adopt it.
Clarify Ortiz’s main claim (Text 2)
Ortiz’s tone is cautious: he says the effects of remote work are more complicated.
- On productivity: some people produce more at home, but others struggle without in-person collaboration, and large-scale studies link prolonged remote work to slower product innovation.
- On the environment: household energy use rises when people stay home, which can cancel out or even exceed the emissions saved from less commuting. So Ortiz is saying: productivity and environmental benefits are not guaranteed and can sometimes be worse with remote work.
Decide how Ortiz would respond to Nguyen’s recommendation
Nguyen recommends that all companies make remote work permanent because she believes the benefits are clear and universal. Ortiz, however, presents:
- Mixed results on productivity (helps some, hurts others, may slow innovation).
- Mixed results on sustainability (home energy use may erase commuting gains). So he would not fully agree with her universal recommendation. Instead, he would warn that making remote work permanent everywhere could harm some companies because the supposed benefits do not always appear.
Match that relationship to the best answer choice
Now compare each answer choice to this relationship:
- A: Says Ortiz agrees remote work should be standard but wants better technology. Ortiz never endorses remote work as a standard practice, and he does not focus on technology, so this is wrong.
- B: Says Ortiz thinks environmental benefits outweigh innovation problems. Ortiz actually warns environmental benefits can be canceled out or exceeded, so this is the opposite of what he says.
- C: Says Ortiz wants employee preferences to decide. He talks about productivity and emissions data, not about preferences vs. data, so this is wrong.
- D: Says Ortiz would warn that a universal switch could backfire because gains in productivity and sustainability are not consistent across situations. This exactly matches his point: results are mixed and sometimes negative, so a blanket policy could hurt firms.
Therefore, the correct answer is: D) By asserting that a universal switch to remote work could backfire because gains in productivity and sustainability are not consistent across situations.