Let's simplify the arguments from Bernard and Cora.
Cora: Letter sequences were arranged to slow down the operator so as not to break the typewriter.
Bernard: This cannot be true, computers still have the same letter sequence, even though they cannot be broken by fast typing.
Bernard claims the fact that the keyboard layout is the same as it was means that it was never designed to slow down the operator. Cora needs to say something that will counter Bernard's rejection, either by pointing out a flaw in his argument or adding support to her own.
I can see why B was a tempting answer. A and B are similar, but A gives a better explanation of why the standard keyboard has remained. B is more like a set of facts that both people have already agreed upon.
1. Typewriters have been superseded 2. Word-Processing equipment has inherited the standard keyboard.
Both parties have acknowledged this, so it doesn't do much to advance Cora's argument.
Answer choice A explains how people could have learned a format that was initially meant to slow them down, but they eventually came to prefer it. This invalidates Bernard's rejection.
kensMay 6, 2020
I don't quite understand where we can draw that Cora agreed on the fact that "Typewriters have been superseded?" Thanks in advance.
Emil-KunkinJune 2, 2024
I don't see why we would need to do that, but we can assume she would believe this just as general knowledge. This is where common sense comes in.
