Example 1
Read the passage below and answer the questions:
[CAT 2020]
[There is] a curious new reality: Human contact is becoming a luxury good. As more screens appear in the lives of the poor, screens are disappearing from the lives of the rich. The richer you are, the more you spend to be off-screen. . . .
The joy — at least at first — of the internet revolution was its democratic nature. Facebook is the same Facebook whether you are rich or poor . mail is the same Gmail. And it’s all free. There is something mass market and unappealing about that. And as studies show that time on these advertisement-support platforms is unhealthy, it all starts to seem déclassé, like drinking soda or smoking cigarettes, which wealthy people do less than poor people. The wealthy can afford to opt out of having their data and their attention sold as a product.The poor and middle class don’t have the same kind of resources to make that happen.
Screen exposure starts young. And children who spent more than two hours a day looking at a screen got lower scores on thinking and language tests, according to early results of a landmark study on brain development of more than 11,000 children that the National Institutes of Health is supporting. Most disturbingly, the study is finding that the brains of children who spend a lot of time on screens are different. For some kids, there is premature thinning of their cerebral cortex. In adults, one study found an association between screen time and depression. . . .
Tech companies worked hard to get public schools to buy into programs that required schools to have one laptop per student, arguing that it would better prepare children for their screen based future. But this idea isn’t how the people who actually build the screen-based future raise their own children. In Silicon Valley, time on screens is increasingly seen as unhealthy. Here, the popular elementary school is the local Waldorf School, which promises a back-to nature, nearly screen-free education. So as wealthy kids are growing up with less screen time, poor kids are growing up with more. How comfortable someone is with human engagement could become a new class marker.
Human contact is, of course, not exactly like organic food . . . . But with screen time, there has been a concerted effort on the part of Silicon Valley behemoths to confuse the public. The poor and the middle class are told that screens are good and important for them and their children. There are fleets of psychologists and neuroscientists on staff at big tech companies working to hook eyes and minds to the screen as fast as possible and for as long as possible. And so human contact is rare. . . .
There is a small movement to pass a “right to disconnect” bill, which would allow workers to turn their phones off, but for now a worker can be punished for going offline and not being available. There is also the reality that in our culture of increasing isolation, in which so many of the traditional gathering places and social structures have disappeared, screens are filling a crucial void.
Question 1 of 4
Which of the following statements about the negative effects of screen time is the author least likely to endorse?
(1) It is shown to have adverse effects on young children’s learning.
(2) It increases human contact as it fills an isolation void.
(3) It can cause depression in viewers.
(4) It is designed to be addictive.
Solution
In this RC, the author speaks about the negative effects of screen time (time spent on electronic devices), explaining that poorer people (especially children) are spending more screen time than richer people. The negative effects of screen time are described in the third paragraph.
We are looking for an option which the author will not endorse, and hence, we can eliminate any options which the author has mentioned in the passage. We can eliminate options (1) and (3), which are mentioned in the third paragraph (children who spent more than two hours a day looking at a screen got lower scores on thinking and language tests and one study found an association between screen time and depression).
The author has also mentioned option (4), while referring to tech companies (fleets of psychologists and neuroscientists...working to hook eyes and minds to the screen as fast as possible and for as long as possible).
Option (2) is actually a positive point, as it suggests that screen time increases human content. We know that this is not true, the author merely mentions that screens fill a void in our increasingly isolated culture. Therefore, we can select this option.
Answer: (2) It increases human contact as it fills an isolation void.
Question 2 of 4
The statement “The richer you are, the more you spend to be off-screen” is supported by which other line from the passage?
(1) “Gmail is the same Gmail. And it’s all free.”
(2) “How comfortable someone is with human engagement could become a new class marker.”
(3) . . . screens are filling a crucial void.”
(4) “. . . studies show that time on these advertisement-support platforms is unhealthy.
Solution
The phrase mentioned in the question is correlating time spent off-screen with wealth. While all the options are from the passage, the only one which is related to wealth is option (2). It means that being comfortable with human interaction could show what class (rich, middle-class, poor) people are from.
Option (1) is unrelated to wealth, as Gmail is the same for everyone.
Options (3) and (4) are unrelated to wealth, and can also be eliminated.
Therefore, option (2) is the correct choice.
Answer: (2) “How comfortable someone is with human engagement could become a new class marker.”
Question 3 of 4
The author claims that Silicon Valley tech companies have tried to “confuse the public” by:
(1) pushing for greater privacy while working with advertisement-support platforms to mine data.
(2) concealing the findings of psychologists and neuroscientists on screen-time use from the public.
(3) developing new work-efficiency programmes while lobbying for the “right to disconnect” bill.
(4) promoting screen time in public schools while opting for a screen-free education for their own children.
Solution
The author tells us that tech companies based in the Silicon Valley (a region in California, USA) are getting schools to provide one laptop to each student, and engaging psychologists and neuroscientists to get people addicted to screens. At the same time, we can infer that the tech employees are aware of the issues with spending more time on screens, as they are educating their own kids in schools which focus more on nature and human interaction.
This is mentioned in option (4) – note that both parts (promoting screen time and opting for a screen-free education for their own children) are important to showcase the intent to confuse.
Options (1) is incorrect, and has not been mentioned in the passage.
Similarly, option (2) is also incorrect – the author states that psychologists and neuroscientists are actually hired by tech companies to get people addicted. Concealing their findings is not mentioned.
Similarly, we have not been told that it is the tech companies that are lobbying for the “right to disconnect” bill.
Therefore, we can eliminate the other options and select option (4) as the correct choice.
Answer: (4) promoting screen time in public schools while opting for a screen-free education for their own children.
Question 4 of 4
The author is least likely to agree with the view that the increase in screen-time is fuelled by the fact that:
(1) screens provide social contact in an increasingly isolating world.
(2) there is a growth in computer-based teaching in public schools.
(3) some workers face punitive action if they are not online.
(4) with falling costs, people are streaming more content on their devices.
Solution
Since we need to select an option that the author is least likely to agree with, let us eliminate the options which the author will probably agree with.
The author will agree with option (1) as it is mentioned in the last paragraph (in our culture of increasing isolation, ... screens are filling a crucial void).
Similarly, option (2) can also be inferred from the fact that tech companies have convinced schools to have one laptop per student.
Option (3) is mentioned in the last paragraph (for now a worker can be punished for going offline).
Therefore, these three options can be eliminated, and we can select option (4). Falling cost of either content or devices has not been mentioned anywhere. As the other points have been mentioned by the author, this is the one which is least likely in comparison.
Answer: (4) with falling costs, people are streaming more content on their devices.