The correct option is C - The value of human intervention in the workplace affected by AI might be enhanced through redirection towards more fulfilling tasks.
[as per provisional answerkey]
Why this is correct
The passage explicitly states that if AI proves different from previous technologies by actually replacing certain tasks, its effects may be "salutary" (beneficial). It explains that human agents would be "freed up to spend more time on creative and rewarding tasks," such as improving products through feedback. This directly supports the idea that human intervention is not eliminated but rather redirected toward higher-value, more fulfilling work, thereby enhancing the quality of their contribution to the workplace.
Why the other options are incorrect
- Option (a) - If AI were to take over customer service, there would be no work left for human subjects to do: This contradicts the passage, which suggests that humans would transition to "creative and rewarding tasks" rather than having no work at all.
- Option (b) - Irritating voice menus and email could not achieve human redundancy to the extent that AI might: While the passage hints that AI "could yet prove different" from previous technologies, the core "point of view" of the author is focused on the positive potential of this shift (the salutary effects), not merely a comparison of redundancy levels.
- Option (d) - Unlike previous waves in customer-service technology, AI has raised the alarm of worker replacement: This is factually incorrect based on the text; the passage states that previous waves (email and voice menus) also "stoked concerns of job losses," meaning AI is not unique in raising such alarms.
Key Concept
The passage focuses on the "salutary" or beneficial transformation of labor roles through the automation of repetitive tasks, emphasizing the shift from routine to creative work.