Final answer:
True, joint mobility should not be compromised for stability. The shoulder joint permits a wide range of motion but is less stable, while carpal bones have limited mobility but provide more stability.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement joint mobility must never be attained by compromising joint stability is TRUE. The inherent trade-off between mobility and stability in joints means that a highly mobile joint, such as the shoulder joint, which allows the greatest range of motion, is generally less stable than one with limited mobility. Conversely, joints like the carpal bones offer more stability and less range of motion, which is essential for functions that require a firm structure. The anatomy of different joints is designed to suit their function in the body.
For example, the joints of the skull have very little to no mobility because the main function of these joints is to protect the brain and provide a stable structure for the head. In contrast, joints that allow wide ranges of motion, like the shoulder joint, have articulating surfaces that are enclosed within a space filled with lubricating fluid to facilitate smooth movement, but this design inherently leads to less stability.