Skip to main contentSkip to solution

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. Gmail 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 dΓ©classΓ©, 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.

Which of the following statements about the negative effects of screen time is the author least likely to endorse?

Solution

βœ… Correct Option: 3

We need to find which statement the author would least likely endorse about screen time's negative effects. This means I'm looking for either a positive effect or something the author doesn't support.

Let us trace through the passage to understand the author's stance on screen time effects:

From passage: "In adults, one study found an association between screen time and depression" and "children who spent more than two hours a day looking at a screen got lower scores on thinking and language tests"

The author clearly presents screen time as harmful -> depression, learning problems, brain changes -> wealthy people avoid it -> poor people get more exposed to it.


The key insight is the word "negative effects" in the question.we need to find what the author would not consider a negative effect, or what contradicts the author's negative view.

From passage: "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."

But the author also says -> "human contact is rare" and "Human contact is becoming a luxury good" -> so screens aren't really increasing genuine human contact.


πŸ”΄ Option 1 -> directly supported -> author cites study linking screen time to depression

πŸ”΄ Option 2 -> directly supported -> author mentions tech companies using "psychologists and neuroscientists...to hook eyes and minds"

🟒 Option 3 -> contradicts author's view -> while author mentions screens "fill a void," the overall message is that screens reduce human contact and make it a "luxury good"

πŸ”΄ Option 4 -> directly supported -> author cites study showing lower test scores and brain changes in children

Option 3 presents something that sounds positive (increasing human contact), but the author's entire argument is that screens are making real human contact rarer and more expensive. The author wouldn't endorse the idea that screens increase human contact.

Keyboard Shortcuts

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