Evaluate Evidence Adequacy Practice Test
•15 QuestionsRead the passage and answer the question below.
A cultural critic contends that contemporary “mindfulness” programs in workplaces often function less as mental health support than as a way to make stress appear manageable and individual. The central claim is that, when offered by employers, mindfulness can subtly redirect attention away from structural sources of strain—unpredictable schedules, understaffing, constant performance monitoring—toward personal coping skills.
The author first cites excerpts from promotional materials of three large firms. The materials emphasize resilience, calm focus, and “owning your response,” while mentioning workload only in passing. The author notes that the programs are framed as universally beneficial, with little discussion of which work conditions generate stress. These texts are presented as evidence of an individualizing emphasis.
Second, the author describes a small internal survey from one firm in which employees who attended mindfulness sessions reported feeling “more able to get through the day,” but the same survey showed no change in reported overtime hours. The author suggests that unchanged overtime alongside improved coping language is consistent with the idea that the program affects interpretation of stress more than its sources.
Third, the author recounts a case where a department requested additional staffing and was instead offered an expanded mindfulness subscription. The author interprets this as an institutional preference for interventions that do not alter budgets or workflows. However, the author also concedes that some employees may genuinely benefit from mindfulness regardless of management’s motives.
Which option best describes the strength of the author’s evidence for the central claim?
Read the passage and answer the question below.
A cultural critic contends that contemporary “mindfulness” programs in workplaces often function less as mental health support than as a way to make stress appear manageable and individual. The central claim is that, when offered by employers, mindfulness can subtly redirect attention away from structural sources of strain—unpredictable schedules, understaffing, constant performance monitoring—toward personal coping skills.
The author first cites excerpts from promotional materials of three large firms. The materials emphasize resilience, calm focus, and “owning your response,” while mentioning workload only in passing. The author notes that the programs are framed as universally beneficial, with little discussion of which work conditions generate stress. These texts are presented as evidence of an individualizing emphasis.
Second, the author describes a small internal survey from one firm in which employees who attended mindfulness sessions reported feeling “more able to get through the day,” but the same survey showed no change in reported overtime hours. The author suggests that unchanged overtime alongside improved coping language is consistent with the idea that the program affects interpretation of stress more than its sources.
Third, the author recounts a case where a department requested additional staffing and was instead offered an expanded mindfulness subscription. The author interprets this as an institutional preference for interventions that do not alter budgets or workflows. However, the author also concedes that some employees may genuinely benefit from mindfulness regardless of management’s motives.
Which option best describes the strength of the author’s evidence for the central claim?