Researcher: In a recent study of

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens, If Anything15% picked this

   The recommended height for computers is different for children than

   This answer says the recommended height for computers differs between children and adults. But the argument already established that the computers are positioned too high for children — confirming that the standard is different and that the school computers do not meet the child-appropriate standard. If anything, acknowledging that children have different ergonomic requirements supports the claim that the current setup is problematic for them. This answer reinforces the premise that the computers are improperly positioned for children rather than undermining the conclusion about injury risk.

   15%
2. B

   Unclear Impact7% picked this

   Children spend more time working with computers at home than

   This answer says children spend more time on computers at home than at school. While this is interesting, its impact on the argument is uncertain. It could mean children accumulate more total exposure to bad posture, which might strengthen the risk claim. Or it could be irrelevant if home computers are better positioned. The argument specifically concerns school computers and their posture effects. Whether children face additional risks at home does not address whether school computer posture problems produce the same injury risk as office workers face. The argument's comparison is between school children and office workers, not between total child computer exposure and adult exposure.

   7%
3. C

   Correct72% picked this

   The greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to

   Why this is right

   This answer directly attacks the argument's bridge assumption — that similar posture problems produce similar injury risks in children and adults. By establishing that children's bodies are more supple and therefore less susceptible to repetitive stress injuries, this answer drives a wedge between "same bad posture" and "same injury risk." The argument assumed that because children experience the same types of unhealthy postures as office workers, they face the same risk of RSI. But if children's greater physical suppleness acts as a protective factor, the same postures could produce significantly lower injury risk. The posture problems are real, but the risk comparison to office workers fails because children's bodies are biologically more resilient to the specific type of damage that RSI represents.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
4. D

   Strengthens, If Anything5% picked this

   Office workers' keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended heights for healthy

   This answer says office workers' computers are also not at recommended heights. If anything, this strengthens the parallel between children and office workers — both groups face improperly positioned equipment. The argument claims children face the same RSI risk as office workers. Showing that office workers also use poorly positioned computers supports the comparison by confirming that both populations experience similar ergonomic failures. To weaken the argument, we need a reason why the same posture problems do not produce the same risk, not additional evidence that the posture problems are comparable.

   5%
5. E

   No Impact2% picked this

   Office workers are more likely to report injuries than

   This answer says office workers are more likely to report injuries than children. But the argument's conclusion is about actual risk — the likelihood of developing RSI — not about reporting rates. Even if children underreport injuries, that does not change whether they actually face the same physiological risk. The argument is making a claim about biological susceptibility based on posture analysis, not about injury statistics based on self-reporting. Differences in reporting behavior might affect how we measure injuries, but the argument's conclusion is about whether the risk exists, not about whether it is documented.

   2%