PT151.S3.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author hypothesizes that office equipment and furniture are not properly designed to promote workers’ health. This is based on the fact that the incidence of lower-back injuries among office workers who spend a long time sitting is higher than the incidence of lower-back injuries among people who regularly do physical work that puts stresses on their lower back.

The author assumes that the there’s no other explanation for the higher rate of lower-back injuries among office workers than the design of office equipment and furniture. This overlooks the possibility that there’s some difference between office workers and physical laborers that might account the difference in rate of lower-back injury.

If anything, this strengthens the argument by eliminating differences in sitting time at home as a potential explanation. For example, if office workers had sit a lot more at home, then the overall sitting time might have been the true explanation for the higher rate of injury.

What insurance companies prefer has no impact on what might explain the disparity in lower-back injury between office workers and physical laborers.

We have no reason to think office workers aren’t similarly encouraged to use techniques that reduce back stress (ex. seat cushions). In addition, even if the laborers can reduce back stress, we’d still expect them to get back injuries at a higher rate than office workers.

The timing of injuries doesn’t have clear impact on the argument. Back stress might cause injury at work or it might build up and lead to injury at home. If this answer does anything, it might strengthen the argument by connecting injuries to the office.

Laborers get much more physical exercise (which includes more than just gym activities/cardio) than office workers on the job. This disparity in physical exercise, rather than office equipment design, could be the true explanation for the disparity in lower-back injuries.

PrepTest 151 - Section 3 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action