Self-study
Historian: The standard "QWERTY" configuration of the keys on typewriters and computer keyboards was originally designed to be awkward and limit typing speed. ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████████ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██████████████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ █████ ████████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ███ ████████ █████████████ ███████ ███ █████████████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ████
Summary
The standard QWERTY style of keyboard was designed to slow down typing speed, because it was originally designed for early typewriters. These typewriters could jam if keys were typed too quickly. There exist faster keyboard configurations, but these aren’t used widely, because it would be too expensive and inconvenient to switch away from the QWERTY configuration, which people are used to.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The original purpose of the QWERTY configuration has resulted in the standardization of a format that doesn’t allow for the fastest typing speed.
If keyboards were designed for something that didn’t jam when typing too quickly, a non-QWERTY keyboard configuration might have been used.
21.
Which one of the following ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████
a
Most people who ████ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████ █████████████ ████ ███████ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████████
Unsupported, because we only know that there are some faster configurations. There could be many others that are equally slow. And, most people might not be able to type faster even if the configuration makes it possible. They might need training and experience to type faster.
b
Early QWERTY typewriters ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████████
Unsupported. We don’t have a comparison between early and later typewriters. If anything, we might suspect early typewriters were more likely to jam than later ones, assuming that technology improved in the later ones, allowing for faster typing.
c
If the designers ██ █████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████████████
Unsupported, because the designers of early typewriters would still be working within the limitations of the then-current technology. They still had to deal with the fact early typewriters could jam if typed too quickly.
d
The benefit to ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████████ █████████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ █ ███████
Unsupported, because the stimulus doesn’t give us enough to evaluate the costs and benefits of a new configuration. We know that switching would be costly and inconvenient, and we don’t know whether the benefit of faster typing would outweigh those costs.
e
If the keyboard ███ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████
Strongly supported, because we know the QWERTY keyboard was designed to limit typing speed because they were designed for early typewriters. If keyboards were designed for something that did not jam when typed quickly, they probably wouldn’t have needed to limit typing speed.