Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
AWA (Analysis of Argument) - Peer comments invited [#permalink]
24 Apr 2013, 07:20
Folks - Pls. help to share your opinion about the below argument. Thanks.
Prompt: "Seven years ago, Zephyr Industries had no problem recruiting qualified candidates from college campuses. This year, however, Zephyr has hired only three qualified interns, fewer than one-quarter of those hired in each of the three preceding years. This suggests that the company's recruitment efforts need to be revamped. Since a growing number of potential recruits learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards, Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and instead hire social media consultants."
The argument claims that Zephyr industries needs to revamp its recruitment strategy of hiring candidates from college campuses. Because a growing number of potential recruits learn of career opportunities from social media and online discussion boards, it would be more useful for the company to hire social media consultants rather than focusing on campus recruitment drives. Stated in this way, the argument fails to consider several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions that its new strategy will lead to the desired results, without showing supporting evidence from the past. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the dearth of talent in college candidates has dropped sharply this year. However, the real cause of the low recruits this year could be tough criteria laid by the company recruitment board. For Instance, the company's expectations have increased according to the market scenario, thereby making it tougher for the already qualified interns. Also there are many companies who visit the college campus for recruitment. There is no mention by the author whether Zephyr was the only company which came for recruitment this year. What if a large number of big competing firms came this year, and most of the qualified interns got selected in them. The author claims that Zephyr had no problems with recruitment in the past, so the condition of the company as a whole this year also comes into picture. What if the company is not performing well, so many qualified interns opted out for its placement drive.
Second, the argument claims that a growing number of recruits learn of opportunities from social media and online discussion boards. Thus, qualified interns are opting out of the campus recruitment drive. However, there is no strong evidence or survey shown to prove this point. What if the competition is very high in this sector, the company might succeed in its desired results. Furthermore, the interest of the interns into the company's work cannot be neglected.
Finally, the argument concludes that Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and instead hire social media consultants. Without supporting evidence and examples that this new strategy will achieve desired results, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. It could be possibly strengthened if the author performs a thorough analysis of the situation on the basis of surveys or studies.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above, it could have been more thorough and convincing.