Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found

Question

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found that all keyboards and most monitors were positioned higher than recommended for children. Consequently, children were seated in ways that encouraged craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. Evidently, most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effect on posture, and thus put children at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's argument?

(A) The recommended height for computers is different for children than for adults.

(B) Children spend more time working with computers at home than at school.

(C) The greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries.

(D) Office workers' keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy postures for adults.

(E) Office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are.

sansun · Answer

(C) weakens this most directly because it says children’s bodies are more flexible and therefore are less prone to those injuries than adults. So even if children use poorly positioned devices, they may not face the same level of risk as office workers.
 
 Why not the others: 
(A) supports the need for child-specific computer setup.
(B) home computer use is irrelevant to whether school computers create the same risk as office workers.
(D) may support the comparison to office workers instead of weakening
(E) reporting injuries is not the same as actually having a different injury risk.

guddo · Answer

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found that all keyboards and most monitors were positioned higher than recommended for children. Consequently, children were seated in ways that encouraged craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. Evidently, most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effect on posture, and thus put children at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers.
 
 Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the researcher's argument?

The researcher concludes that poor computer positioning puts children at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers.  The key weakness  would be evidence that children, even with poor posture, are not as physically vulnerable to those injuries as adults are.

(A) The recommended height for computers is different for children than for adults.

This does not weaken the argument. The study already says the computers were higher than recommended for children.

(B) Children spend more time working with computers at home than at school.

This does not directly weaken the claim about school computers. Home computer use may add another risk, but it does not show that school computers are safe.

(C) The greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries.

This is correct.  If children are less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries, then poor posture may not put them at the same risk as office workers. This directly weakens the researcher’s  same-risk  conclusion.

(D) Office workers' keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy postures for adults.

This does not weaken the argument. It may even support the comparison between children and office workers.

(E) Office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are.

This concerns reporting behavior, not actual risk. The argument is about injury risk, not how often injuries are reported.

Answer: (C)

WildSnow · Answer

Hi! I approached this question a bit differently.

I don't understand how children would be at the ''same risk'' if the monitors are positioned higher than recommended. Intuitively, wouldn't they be at an even greater risk than office workers? That's why I was leaning toward (A) since it seems to support that line of reasoning.
I'm clearly missing something here. Thanks!

guddo · Answer

A does not weaken because the study already uses the child-specific standard.

The passage says the keyboards and monitors were higher than recommended for children. So the fact that children have different recommended heights from adults is already built into the problem.

Also, “same risk” does not mean the setup is physically identical to an office setup. It means children may face a comparable risk of repetitive stress injuries.

C weakens that directly: if children’s bodies are  less susceptible  to those injuries than adults’ bodies are, then bad posture may not put children at the same  risk level  as office workers.

egmat · Answer

Hi WildSnow,

Your instinct is sharper than you think; you're just attacking a slightly different conclusion than the one the researcher actually wrote.

What the conclusion is really claiming

Read the last line carefully: the researcher concludes that school computers put kids "at the  same risk  for repetitive stress injuries  as office workers ." That's a claim about the  injury outcome  being equal between two groups - kids and office workers - not a claim about who has worse ergonomic  conditions . To weaken it, you need to break that equality: either show kids end up with less risk than office workers, or show office workers end up with more.

Why (A) doesn't do that

(A) says the recommended height for kids differs from adults. But the stimulus has  already  told you that - it says the monitors were "higher than recommended  for children ." So (A) only re-states a premise; it doesn't touch the kids-vs-office-workers comparison at all. Your reasoning "monitors are too high, so kids have it worse" feels right, but notice that "worse than the standard for kids" is not the same as "worse than office workers." The argument never claimed kids and office workers face  identical  postural conditions - it claimed they end up with the same  risk .

Why (C) lands

(C) says kids' bodies are physiologically more supple, so they're less susceptible to RSIs than adults. Even granting every premise - bad posture, craned necks, awkward wrists - if kids' bodies absorb that strain better, the risk of injury isn't equal. The "same risk" link snaps.

A quick stand-in

Imagine the claim was:  "Both my old car and the new sports car drive on bumpy roads, so they suffer the same wear."  To weaken that, you don't need to prove the sports car's road is  more  bumpy - that doesn't break the equality. You need to show the sports car's  suspension  handles bumps better. That's exactly what (C) does for kids: better "suspension," same bumpy road, less wear.

Answer: C

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Researcher: In a recent study of elementary school computers, we found

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards