Text 1
Cognitive psychologist Maya Deshpande argues that repeated personal failure leads individuals to avoid subsequent high-stakes risks. Citing laboratory studies in which participants who lost money in simulated investments later chose safer portfolios, Deshpande maintains that "scar memory"—the lingering recollection of losses—exerts a powerful dampening effect on future risk-taking. She concludes that communities with a collective history of failure, such as firms that have launched several unsuccessful products, will predictably pursue conservative strategies thereafter.
Text 2
A team of management scholars examined 42 technology start-ups that experienced a major product flop during their first three years. Contrary to their expectations and to much of the psychological literature, the researchers found that a substantial majority of these companies responded by increasing their research-and-development budgets and adopting bolder product designs within two years of the flop. Interviews revealed that founders often viewed the failure as a license to experiment more radically, reasoning that they had "little left to lose" and hoping that dramatic innovation would differentiate them in crowded markets.
Based on the two texts, how would the scholars in Text 2 most likely respond to Deshpande’s claim in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, break each author’s position into distinct parts, such as a causal premise, predicted effect, scope, and degree of certainty. Then compare the texts at each level rather than relying only on broad agreement-or-disagreement signals. Prefer the choice that captures both the shared ground and the precise disagreement without adding a distinction or generalization that the texts do not establish.
Hints
Identify two parts of the first claim
Distinguish between the idea that failure influences later choices and the more specific prediction about whether it makes those choices safer or riskier.
Examine the founders’ reasoning
Consider whether the founders ignored their earlier failures or whether their memories of those failures helped motivate their new strategies.
Watch for unsupported generalizations
Eliminate choices that establish a universal rule from one study, invent a distinction the researchers did not test, or redefine clearly bold behavior as conservative.
Step-by-step Explanation
Separate Deshpande’s premise from her prediction
Deshpande makes two related points: memories of failure influence later decisions, and this influence causes people or organizations to become more conservative. The second point is the specific directional prediction that Text 2 tests.
Identify what the scholars found
Most of the start-ups increased research-and-development spending and adopted bolder designs after a major flop. Their founders explicitly connected this response to the failure, describing it as a reason to experiment more radically and reasoning that they had “little left to lose.”
Compare the claims precisely
The scholars’ findings do not show that memories of failure are irrelevant. Instead, those memories helped motivate the firms’ decisions. However, the resulting behavior was greater risk-taking, which conflicts with Deshpande’s prediction that memories of failure predictably dampen risk-taking.
Choose the best-supported response
The best response preserves the point on which the texts agree—that failure can shape later choices—while identifying their disagreement about whether that influence must produce caution. Therefore, the fourth choice is correct.