LSAT 90 - Section 2 - Question 07

This is a Weaken question.

The argument starts by telling us a result of a recent study of elementary school computers. They found that keyboards and monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children. As a result of this (causation), the children were seated in ways that encourage craned necks, awkwardly placed wrists, and other unhealthy postures. That’s the end of the description of the study. Contained within that description are several phenomena and at least one causal relationship between them.

From this study, the researchers conclude that most elementary school computers are installed without consideration of their effects on posture. This is just one potential explanation for the results of the study. There could be other explanations besides the “not-well-considered hypothesis.” Had the stimulus ended here, then it would be very likely that the correct answer choice would have presented an alternative hypothesis. For example, perhaps the designers of the classrooms considered the effects on posture and concluded (for whatever reason) that it didn’t matter.

But, anyway, the argument continues with its main conclusion, as indicated by the word “thus.” It says thus children are put at the same risk for repetitive stress injuries as office workers. By talking about office workers, the argument now utilizes the logic of analogies in addition to causation logic. Is it true that unhealthy postures put children at the same risk for injuries as office workers? That depends on whether children and office workers are affected in a similar manner by these postures. If children and office workers are relevantly similar in that regard, then this argument is fine. Otherwise it's weak.

Correct Answer Choice (C) says the greater suppleness of children's bodies makes them less susceptible than adults to repetitive stress injuries. This cuts against the analogy assumption. (C) reveals that children and adults are not relevantly similar in how they are affected or how they respond to unhealthy postures.

Interestingly, (C) could be used to generate an alternative to the not-well-considered hypothesis. Perhaps the designers of the classrooms did consider the effects of posture. They knew something that these researchers didn't, namely that children are more supple and therefore don't suffer negative effects from poor posture. And that's why they thought the “awkward” positioning of computer equipment didn't matter. This is pure speculation.

Answer Choice (A) says the recommended height for computers is different for children than adults. This is obvious because children are not only much smaller than adults but also proportioned differently. They have huge heads. But aside from the obviousness of the content in this answer, it's not relevant. While (A) does point out a difference between children and adults, it's not the relevant difference. The argument never assumed that the recommended height would be the same for children and adults. It only said that computer monitors were positioned higher than what was recommended for children.

Answer Choice (B) says children spend more time working with computers at home than at school. We don't care about where children are spending time with computers. We already know that they spend time with computers at school. That is the basis for the conclusion that they’re at risk for repetitive stress injury. Whether that conclusion follows has nothing to do with whether they also spend time with computers at home.

Answer Choice (D) says office workers’ keyboards and monitors are usually not at the recommended height for healthy postures for adults. This only tightens the analogy and therefore strengthens the argument. Now we know that adults are also subject to the same causal forces as children, namely, poorly positioned computer equipment. That doesn’t guarantee the conclusion, since we still need to consider whether adults and children are similarly affected. But at least (D) brings to surface the assumption that the causes are similarly present for both groups.

Answer Choice (E) says office workers are more likely to report injuries than children are. No doubt this is true; after all, office workers are adults and children are children. But who cares? First, note that this doesn't talk about what kind of injuries. Second, even if it specified that the injuries are repetitive stress injuries, we still don’t care, because the argument doesn't assume anything about reported injuries. The conclusion is a prediction about the risk of children suffering injuries, regardless of whether they report them.