Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Privacy challenged office workers may find it hard to believe, but open-plan offices and cubicles were invented by architects and designers who thought that to break down the social walls that divide people, you had to break down the real walls, too. Modernist architects saw walls and rooms as downright fascist. The spaciousness and flexibility of an open plan would liberate homeowners and office dwellers from the confines of boxes. But companies took up their idea less out of a democratic ideology than a desire to pack in as many workers as they could. The typical open-plan office of the first half of the 20th century was a white-collar assembly line. Cubicles were interior designers' attempt to put some soul back in.

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 1

We need to find the main contrast the author is highlighting about open-plan offices.

The passage shows a clear before vs. after story:

  1. Before: Architects had good intentions (break social walls, liberation)
  2. After: Companies used it for bad reasons (pack more workers, save money)

From passage: "Privacy challenged office workers may find it hard to believe, but open-plan offices and cubicles were invented by architects and designers who thought that to break down the social walls that divide people, you had to break down the real walls, too."

From passage: "But companies took up their idea less out of a democratic ideology than a desire to pack in as many workers as they could."

Thought process:

Architects wanted to help people connect -> Companies wanted to save money -> Original good idea became bad reality


Let's check each option by asking: Does this capture the main contrast between good intentions and bad reality?

🟒 Option 1 -> correct -> captures both the "utopian inventors" (good intentions) and "exploitation" (bad reality). This matches the passage perfectly.

πŸ”΄ Option 2 -> scope-error -> says spaces "could have worked" but passage doesn't suggest this. The passage just explains what actually happened, not what might have been possible.

🟠 Option 3 -> degree-error -> says companies "don't believe" in democratic ideology, but passage just says they cared more about packing workers. It's not about belief, it's about priorities.

🟠 Option 4 -> partial-truth -> mentions cubicles correctly but makes them seem like the main solution. Passage shows cubicles were just trying to "put some soul back in" - they weren't a real fix for the main problem.

Student confusion: You might think Option 4 looks good because it mentions cubicles from the passage. But remember - just because something is mentioned doesn't mean it's the main point. The passage is really about the contrast between good intentions and bad results, not about cubicles being a solution.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question