A social psychologist argues that remote work tends to increase employees’ sense of autonomy. In support, the author notes that in a small interview-based study of 18 employees at a software firm, many participants described choosing their own schedules and reported feeling “more in control” of their day. The author also cites an internal company survey (response rate not provided) in which remote employees selected “flexibility” as a top benefit more often than on-site employees did. As an additional illustration, the author describes one employee who moved to a rural area and claimed that the lack of commuting “made work feel self-directed.” The author briefly acknowledges that some workers may feel monitored by digital tools but suggests this is “less central” than schedule flexibility.
Which statement best evaluates the evidence supporting the author’s claim?
- The evidence offers some relevant support—especially the interview reports and the survey comparison—but its limited scope and unclear survey details leave room for alternative interpretations about autonomy. (correct answer)
- Because multiple sources are cited (interviews, a survey, and an example), the author’s claim is essentially established beyond reasonable doubt.
- The evidence is not relevant to autonomy because flexibility and commuting time are economic issues rather than psychological ones, so the author provides no real support.
- The evidence is weak mainly because the author does not demonstrate that remote work increases productivity, which would be required to show increased autonomy.
Explanation: This question tests your ability to evaluate evidence adequacy in the context of a social psychology claim. Evidence adequacy concerns how well the provided support establishes the claim, not whether the claim itself is ultimately true or false. The evidence includes interview data from 18 employees, an internal survey with unspecified response rate, and an anecdotal example of one remote worker. The correct answer (A) recognizes that while the evidence offers relevant support through multiple sources addressing autonomy, the limited sample size and missing methodological details leave room for alternative interpretations. Answer B incorrectly treats multiple sources as automatically establishing proof, when adequacy depends on quality and scope, not just quantity. When evaluating evidence adequacy, check both relevance (does it address the claim?) and sufficiency (is it comprehensive enough to support the conclusion?).