- Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:57 pm
When I was reviewing this question, (A) actually confuses me a little bit. There are two interpretations for (A)--on the one hand, it mildly strengthens because it's giving a baseline for the office workers and the physical workers. They sit for the same amount at home. But another interpretation of it, that (A) suggests office workers sit for longer, seems to suggest an alternate cause, which is that sitting longer is the cause of more lower back injuries.
I chose (E) initially because I thought the conclusion was a terrible one, since sitting longer/being not active is more likely the reason why, rather than some ridiculous reason blaming the furniture. But applying this logic to the second interpretation of (A), I also thought (A) weakens in the same why by presenting sitting longer/being less active as an alternate cause. Can someone explain the distinction between that interpretation of (A) and (E)?
Is it because of (A)'s ambiguity that it's wrong?