Two Sources, One Paragraph
A student is writing an analytical paragraph on whether remote work improves productivity. She has two sources. Source A is a 2023 survey of 400 employees at a single software company; 78% self-report being more productive at home. Source B is a 2022 meta-analysis of 46 studies across industries finding a small positive effect on output but a negative effect on informal collaboration. The student's draft paragraph reads: 'Research proves remote work makes people more productive. A survey found 78% of workers are more productive at home, and a major analysis of 46 studies agrees. Therefore companies should allow remote work.' Her teacher comments that the paragraph 'overclaims and flattens the sources'.
1. Identify the specific comprehension errors the student has made in representing Source A and Source B, quoting the draft where relevant.
Read the worked answer
There are at least four errors. First, 'Research proves' is an overclaim: neither source establishes proof, and Source A is a self-report survey, which measures perception, not productivity. Second, the student writes '78% of workers' when Source A surveyed 400 employees at one software company - the finding cannot be generalised to 'workers' generally, and the student has dropped the sample and context. Third, 'a major analysis of 46 studies agrees' misrepresents Source B, which found only a small positive effect on output and, crucially, a negative effect on collaboration. The student has selected the supportive half of the finding and suppressed the qualifying half. Fourth, 'Therefore companies should allow remote work' is a recommendation that does not follow from the evidence, especially once Source B's collaboration finding is restored. The phrase 'flattens the sources' is accurate: both sources have been reduced to a single uncontested claim.
2. Rewrite the paragraph so it represents both sources accurately and reaches a defensible conclusion. Explain each change you make.
Read the worked answer
Model rewrite: 'Evidence on remote work is mixed rather than conclusive. A 2023 survey of 400 employees at one software company found that 78% reported being more productive at home, though self-reported perceptions may not match measured output. A 2022 meta-analysis of 46 studies across industries found a small positive effect on output but a negative effect on informal collaboration. Taken together, the sources suggest remote work may not reduce productivity and may even raise individual output, but it appears to weaken the informal interaction that supports collaborative work. A defensible conclusion is therefore not that companies should simply allow remote work, but that they should design hybrid arrangements that protect collaboration.' Changes: 'proves' becomes 'evidence is mixed'; the 78% is attributed to its specific sample and labelled as self-report; Source B's negative collaboration finding is included; the conclusion is narrowed to what the combined evidence supports and is framed as a design question rather than a blanket policy. Each change restores a qualification the original draft had removed.