Top Law Schools

I understand that saying that robots only substitute one type of demeaning work for another is incorrect. Answer E points this out and it is the credited answer.

However, I think the structure of the argument is like this:
Premise: Engineers design only those kinds of robots that require minimum skill to maintain.
Intermediary conclusion: there will exist demeaning work with the coming of robots.
Conclusion: robots will not "eliminate" demeaning work.

The argument, in my view is a valid one. The claim "robots only substitute one type of demeaning work for another" plays no role in the argument. It also does not invalidate the conclusion, which is: robots will not eliminate demeaning work. If the conclusion is that robots will not decrease demeaning work, I would definitely choose E without hesitation. But here, E only deals with a claim in the stimuli that does not affect the argument.

If the the above analysis is right, then I find it very weird to choose an answer that does not deal with the argument.
Is this question poorly designed or am I overthinking?

post the actual question.

I think this is just a good example of old LR being extremely lenient in logic. Your analysis is fine but don't spend too much time trying to dissect old LR like this. Your time is better spent on newer LR, which require much tighter logic.

Mr. Pancakes wrote:post the actual question.

Also, I assume OP knows this, but don't post actual questions.

The claim that robots will only substitute one type of demeaning work for another is not superfluous--it's the conclusion!