Question

The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.
Privacy-challenged office workers may find it hard to believe, but open-plan offices and cubicles were invented by architects and designers who thought that to break down the social walls that divide people, you had to break down the real walls, too. Modernist architects saw walls and rooms as downright fascist. The spaciousness and flexibility of an open plan would liberate homeowners and office dwellers from the confines of boxes. But companies took up their idea less out of a democratic ideology than a desire to pack in as many workers as they could. The typical open-plan office of the first half of the 20th century was a white-collar assembly line. Cubicles were interior designers’ attempt to put some soul back in.

• A. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out the way their utopian inventors intended, as they became tools for exploitation of labor.
• B. Wall-free office spaces could have worked out the way their utopian inventors intended had companies cared for workers' satisfaction.
• C. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out as desired and therefore cubicles came into being.
• D. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out as companies don’t believe in democratic ideology.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The passage explains the original purpose behind the invention of open-plan offices and cubicles. It emphasizes that architects and designers created these spaces to break down social barriers by eliminating physical walls, thereby promoting freedom and flexibility. However, the passage reveals a shift in this utopian vision when companies adopted the design not for its democratic potential but to maximize worker density, effectively turning offices into "white-collar assembly lines." This led to the creation of cubicles in an effort to restore some individuality to the office environment.

Evaluating the provided summaries:

• The first option highlights how wall-free spaces became means of labor exploitation, aligning with the passage about companies prioritizing worker density over worker satisfaction. This is a strong match with the core message that the original intent was lost.
• The second option suggests that the idea could have worked if companies valued worker satisfaction. While it hints at a possible improvement, it does not capture the essence of how the spaces were fundamentally misused which resulted in the concept's failure.
• The third option notes the introduction of cubicles due to the unsatisfactory results of open spaces, but it lacks the emphasis on the exploitation aspect highlighted in the passage.
• The fourth option attributes failure solely to the absence of democratic ideology in companies, which partly covers the passage's message but does not encompass the exploitation aspect explicitly.

Thus, the option that best captures the essence of the passage is:

Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out the way their utopian inventors intended, as they became tools for exploitation of labor.