Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 30 Jul 2014, 07:12

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

State university's physics department requires that all

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [1] , given: 78

GMAT Tests User
State university's physics department requires that all [#permalink] New post 07 Sep 2012, 17:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  25% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (02:16) correct 31% (01:05) wrong based on 185 sessions
State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university. Professor HAwkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students. Therefore, Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

The argument assumes that ...

a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
b) Because of lack of unity among faculty, University discourages unorthodox style of teaching
c) A professor can be popular without focus on technical research
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
e) Undergraduate students cannot judge the quality of teaching....



Why is A incorrect?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by voodoochild on 08 Sep 2012, 06:07, edited 1 time in total.
Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1956
Followers: 473

Kudos [?]: 1872 [4] , given: 29

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 07 Sep 2012, 20:31
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
voodoochild wrote:
State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university. Professor Hawkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students. Therefore, Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

The argument assumes that ...
a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
b) Because of lack of unity among faculty, University discourages unorthodox style of teaching
c) A professor can be popular without focus on technical research
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
e) Undergraduate students cannot judge the quality of teaching....


Why is A incorrect?


As always, the acid-test for an assumption is the negation-test --- if you can negate a statement, and it doesn't devastate the argument, then that's not an assumption. Negating the core assumption of an argument devastates the argument.

(A) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
Suppose unusual (let's call it "cutting edge") teaching and student popularity do add to the reputation of the school --- maybe they do, but maybe technical research adds to it MORE, so Hawking, while adding something to the university's reputation, does not add nearly as much as his research-oriented colleague. As a below-average contributor, one still could conclude he shouldn't be department head. On the negation test, this one is not a strong choice for an assumption.
In fact, in real life, innovative teaching and student satisfaction do contribute something to the popular appeal of a university, but the grant money, endowment contributions, awards to faculty, etc. etc. depend much more heavily on the fruits of academic research. The former is worth something, but the latter is worth more.
Here's a totally different perspective on what's wrong with this choice. The Physics department has a policy: do research and publish it. Yes, the underlying reason they have this policy is to increase the prestige of the university, but actually doing the research --- that's their stated policy. If Hawking does not follow the policy, then even if he is increasing the prestige of the university through other means, he is still someone who doesn't follow department policy. People who don't follow the explicit policy of a department are typically not the best choices for department chairs. You don't make someone an overseer of the rules if he can't follow the rules in the first place!
If a cop catches you breaking the law, chances are he's not going to let you off for doing something outside of the law that serves the same philosophical purpose as the law you were supposed to be obeying. In most organized systems, the rules are the rules, and doing the thing you are not suppose to do, but with the very best of intentions, is usually not something that wins you points.

(D) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
Suppose that it's likely that unorthodox teachers also focus on technical research --- that would strongly suggest that the unorthodox Prof Hawking was quite likely as engaged in technical research as any of his colleagues. That's the policy in the Physics department, so if Prof Hawking is just as qualified as anyone else, why shouldn't he be the department chair? Denying this statement destroys the argument, so this is the correct assumption.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image


Last edited by mikemcgarry on 10 Sep 2012, 13:11, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 378
Location: US
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 46

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 07 Sep 2012, 20:35
voodoochild wrote:
State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university. Professor HAwkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students. Therefore, Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

The argument assumes that ...

a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
b) Because of lack of unity among faculty, University discourages unorthodox style of teaching
c) A professor can be popular without focus on technical research
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
e) Undergraduate students cannot judge the quality of teaching....

OA D

Why is A incorrect?


Good Question and we've very subtle differences between A & D.

Professors ---> focused on technical research ---> the reputation of the university.
Based on the sequence above, Professors should only concentrate on 'Research' becasue that will automatically lead to addition of reputation.
Option D hits directly on 'Research' saying unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research. Whereas, Option A hits on/talks about 'reputation'. Also, in option A 'unusual teaching styles' is not equal to 'unorthodox methods'.

Hope it helps! Cheers!
_________________

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you do TODAY is important because you're exchanging a day of your life for it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 78

GMAT Tests User
Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 06:59
Thanks for your detailed reply! Your replies are always helpful!

mikemcgarry wrote:
First of all, voodoochild, I know other people have told you this before repeatedly --- please DO NOT post the OA in plain sight. That's the whole point of a spoiler --- folks can look at the OA after they think through the question themselves. To post the OA in plain sight deprives other GC users of the opportunity to consider the question fresh, on their own, and is thus considered within this forum a rude and inconsiderate thing to do. Please edit your post and remove the overt statement of the OA. [I will edit out this paragraph after you remove the open statement of the OA.]




Done. I always do this mistake while writing the problem. I personally don't feel that knowing OA makes any difference. Anyway, that's just me. I have seen numerous posts where OAs are not provided. Any way, I will just follow your advice.


As always, the acid-test for an assumption is the negation-test --- if you can negate a statement, and it doesn't devastate the argument, then that's not an assumption. Negating the core assumption of an argument devastates the argument.

mikemcgarry wrote:

(A) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
Suppose unusual (let's call it "cutting edge") teaching and student popularity do add to the reputation of the school --- maybe they do, but maybe technical research adds to it MORE, so Hawking, while adding something to the university's reputation, does not add nearly as much as his research-oriented colleague. As a below-average contributor, one still could conclude he shouldn't be department head. On the negation test, this one is not a strong choice for an assumption.



Where's the support the blue statement? In fact, if we negate the statement, the argument is killed. The professor has skills that will add to the reputation! I am still not clear. The department is concerned about adding the reputation. There could be 'n' number of ways to add the reputation of the department.

thoughts?
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [1] , given: 13

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 09:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
voodoochild wrote:
Thanks for your detailed reply! Your replies are always helpful!

mikemcgarry wrote:
First of all, voodoochild, I know other people have told you this before repeatedly --- please DO NOT post the OA in plain sight. That's the whole point of a spoiler --- folks can look at the OA after they think through the question themselves. To post the OA in plain sight deprives other GC users of the opportunity to consider the question fresh, on their own, and is thus considered within this forum a rude and inconsiderate thing to do. Please edit your post and remove the overt statement of the OA. [I will edit out this paragraph after you remove the open statement of the OA.]




Done. I always do this mistake while writing the problem. I personally don't feel that knowing OA makes any difference. Anyway, that's just me. I have seen numerous posts where OAs are not provided. Any way, I will just follow your advice.


As always, the acid-test for an assumption is the negation-test --- if you can negate a statement, and it doesn't devastate the argument, then that's not an assumption. Negating the core assumption of an argument devastates the argument.

mikemcgarry wrote:

(A) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
Suppose unusual (let's call it "cutting edge") teaching and student popularity do add to the reputation of the school --- maybe they do, but maybe technical research adds to it MORE, so Hawking, while adding something to the university's reputation, does not add nearly as much as his research-oriented colleague. As a below-average contributor, one still could conclude he shouldn't be department head. On the negation test, this one is not a strong choice for an assumption.



Where's the support the blue statement? In fact, if we negate the statement, the argument is killed. The professor has skills that will add to the reputation! I am still not clear. The department is concerned about adding the reputation. There could be 'n' number of ways to add the reputation of the department.

thoughts?


Hi,
Please consider my reasoning:

Conclusion: Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

premise1) State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university.

premise 2: Professor HAwkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students.

lets diagram it logically: (1) creation of new pub. / new research--->Reputation(2)
(3) Prof(unorthodox methods of teaching)-->popular(4)
(5)Unorthodox --- (6) [GAP] ----->No acceptence(7)

First assumption is a missing piece which usually fills logical gap to complete a conclusion.If you look at option A, it does not talk about technical research (misses out on premise 1) so this statement is a stretch and a giant leap to fill the gap.

Option D is moderate, subtle in language and beautifully connects both the premises to reach the conclusion.

a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.

Now comes the negation
a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity add to the reputation of the university.
Well, it certainly attacks the conclusion, but here the author talks about the addition of reputation. Carefully observe how the argument states, "new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university".

Lets assume reputation by unorthodox means=(U) and by publications =(P)
In this case (option A) we have only (U) so it hurts, but not completely.

consider the option D
d) It is likely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
The guy is unorthodox and he is also focused on research (U+P) this hurts argument more so, it is clear winner.

I hope i was Ok in my explanation, but one thing i want to tell you this question does not even required assumption negation, just a simple assumption connecting the dots would have been sufficient.
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Fighting again to Kill the GMAT devil
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 137
Location: New Delhi
WE 1: Oil and Gas - Engineering & Construction
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 48

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 10:56
Hi Conty, Your last 2 lines, summarize this question pretty well, but (A) and (D) are dangerously close, I am sure if this question comes at N0.38,when one is generally exhausted and just running to finish the GMAT marathon, those with less willpower / less mental stamina would choose (A) and move on, thus hampering their score.
_________________

Giving Kudos, is a great Way to Help the GC Community Kudos

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 14
GMAT Date: 10-20-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 11:02
Quite true, i too messed it up with A...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 13

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 11:08
methevoid wrote:
Hi Conty, Your last 2 lines, summarize this question pretty well, but (A) and (D) are dangerously close, I am sure if this question comes at N0.38,when one is generally exhausted and just running to finish the GMAT marathon, those with less willpower / less mental stamina would choose (A) and move on, thus hampering their score.


Yep it happens with every question.Although, i answered the question in under 1:30 minutes, but when i thought of negating, i had to reread the stimulus like 2 times which is kind of luxury we won't have on the test day :? .
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos :)

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [1] , given: 78

GMAT Tests User
Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 11:52
1
This post received
KUDOS
conty911 wrote:
In this case (option A) we have only (U) so it hurts, but not completely.



Conty911 - If the negation hurts the argument - that's it. It's an assumption. Necessary assumptions don't have to fill the entire gap. It just has to destroy the conclusion. Show me ANY one question from the official guide/official source that when negated, attacks the conclusion and still is the wrong answer choice.

Let's wait for Mike's expert replies. He will surely help us.....
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 13

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 12:43
voodoochild wrote:
conty911 wrote:
In this case (option A) we have only (U) so it hurts, but not completely.



Conty911 - If the negation hurts the argument - that's it. It's an assumption. Necessary assumptions don't have to fill the entire gap. It just has to destroy the conclusion. Show me ANY one question from the official guide/official source that when negated, attacks the conclusion and still is the wrong answer choice.

Let's wait for Mike's expert replies. He will surely help us.....


hmm, lets agree to disagree ,i don't know whats going on in your thoughts regarding option A, but to intend that the question is wrong or the author has put misleading options by just comparing with the OG questions itself is not correct in the first place. We cannot possibly judge the ditto assumption unless we look from author's perspective.

In GMAT we have to select the best option. Out of A and D, D stands out ;in absence of D, A would have been correct.There can always be two different assumptions by two people.It is likely that they will differ at some point but that does not mean that either of their assumption will be wrong.

Although i tried my best :P, the experts might be able clear your confusion with regards to the option A.
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 78

GMAT Tests User
Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 08 Sep 2012, 17:26
conty911 wrote:
hmm, lets agree to disagree ,i don't know whats going on in your thoughts regarding option A, but to intend that the question is wrong or the author has put misleading options by just comparing with the OG questions itself is not correct in the first place. We cannot possibly judge the ditto assumption unless we look from author's perspective.

In GMAT we have to select the best option. Out of A and D, D stands out ;in absence of D, A would have been correct.There can always be two different assumptions by two people.It is likely that they will differ at some point but that does not mean that either of their assumption will be wrong.

Although i tried my best :P, the experts might be able clear your confusion with regards to the option A.


Dear Conty911 - there is no "best answer" in CR. I am not a 99ile guy. But from what I have learned from the experts, the correct answer in CR and RC is always air tight. For assumptions questions- there is no way that two answers will be correct, or we have to choose the best answer. One of them HAS to be wrong. We agree that all of us, including Mike, have agreed that A is correct, but not as good as D. In fact both the answers are correct in my opinion. The reason why I quoted that Official stuff is because you won't find two correct answers in Official problem. I guess this problem is not good. I don't know. Again, I am not a 99%iler. If you know ANY such official problem, I will take my word back. Official problems are therefore "official"!


Thanks
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 41
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 09-28-2012
WE: Accounting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 4

Re: State university's physics department requires that all [#permalink] New post 20 Sep 2012, 15:48
voodoochild wrote:
State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university. Professor HAwkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students. Therefore, Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

The argument assumes that ...

a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
b) Because of lack of unity among faculty, University discourages unorthodox style of teaching
c) A professor can be popular without focus on technical research
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
e) Undergraduate students cannot judge the quality of teaching....



Why is A incorrect?




Hey! voodoo, is this really a sub 600 Q??
I understand that this is easy, but this cannot be a sub 600... please tell me that you have wrongly posted it in this section :shock:
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 1956
Followers: 473

Kudos [?]: 1872 [2] , given: 29

Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2012, 09:19
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
voodoochild wrote:
Conty911 - If the negation hurts the argument - that's it. It's an assumption. Necessary assumptions don't have to fill the entire gap. It just has to destroy the conclusion. Show me ANY one question from the official guide/official source that when negated, attacks the conclusion and still is the wrong answer choice. Let's wait for Mike's expert replies. He will surely help us.....

Voodoo

First of all, to be clear on the question at the head of this article. I would say (D) is completely correct, and (A) is a clever tempting incorrect answer. This is actually a brilliantly constructed fallacy to elicit in people's thinking. The pattern is

Group made a rule/law/policy for such-and-such reason.
Person X doesn't obey the rule/law/policy, but person X fulfills the philosophical "purpose" of the rule/law/policy in his own unique way.


Yes, this really appeals to the over-thinking philosophical part of us that likes to think that what really matters is not the rule/law/policy itself, but the underlying philosophical premise. It's as if the teenager inside each of us loves to imagine scenarios in which we could defy all the rules but still be justified. But think about how the real world works ---- cops, the IRS, military officers, the officers of a corporation, the INS, etc. etc. --- in most context, rules are rules, and the law is the law. If you run afoul of it, it's pretty black-and-white: there are consequences --- it doesn't matter with what you were philosophically aligned. You can have the best motivation, but if you run afoul of the law, you pay. Both Gandhi & Dr. M.L. King were very clear on this and totally accepted it.
Here, this physics department has a policy, and Hawkings is not following it. Plain and simple. Departments don't reward with leadership positions folks who don't follow policy. That's also just plain and simple. Even if (A) is true, even if Hawking's teaching is nationwide famous, award-winning pedagogy, etc. etc., it doesn't change the fact that he isn't following department policy. Rules are rules. Don't obey the rules, and there's consequences. It's that simple. That's why (A), though tempting, is wrong.
Those are my thoughts on this question.

On a separate issue: Voodoo Child. What the GMAT CR requires is flexible critical thinking. The patterns are always different, and in each new argument, there's a new angle to evaluate. Your approach is very rigid and rule-based --- I don't know how many times I have heard you say "this is always true" or "that is never true." You have clearly mastered the rule-based approach --- now, for you, progress will involve giving that up. Forswear use of the words "always", "never", "necessary", "sufficient", etc. etc. Completely give those words up. Stop pronouncing rules and defying others to produce OG examples to the contrary. (Incidentally, such attitudes & behaviors hardly will endear you to your future business school professors or colleagues.) Stop pronouncing rules and arguing in terms of rules: it makes you appear as if you are trying to sound like an expert or claim legitimacy for yourself, and none of that actually makes you more successful. Stop universalizing. Stop looking for the magic combinations of general truths with which to dissect each new CR. You have pursued this style as far as you can take it, and it's no longer paying off. Instead, make if your goal to see what is unique, different, new in each CR. What is crucial in GMAT CR happens in the particular, not in the general. Think in terms of deeper questions, of increase perceptivity, not in terms of more rigorously crafted analytical approaches. ------- Also, develop a keener sense for real world priorities -- there's no substitute for reading the newspaper every day, or the Economist magazine every week. There's no substitute for just listening to (or reading about) people in positions of leadership talking about their jobs and their priorities. Take the head of any wildly successful corporation, or successful politician, or army general -- that leader deeply understands real-world success. If you were to listen to his arguments, they might not all be logical on the surface, but there's a deeper logic of success-in-the-real-world that they follow. In all likelihood, some business school professors will try to communicate aspects of this deeper success-in-the-real-world logic, at least as it applies to business, and if you grill them with questions about "necessary" and "sufficient", you will lose out on a golden opportunity to learn and grow. ----- Of course, GMAT arguments are about surface logic at one level --- what must be true, what's the flaw, etc. --- but they are also always consistent with these much deeper forms of logic, such as success-in-the-real-world logic. Often, it's logic at that level that makes a profound difference between two answer choices that are similar in terms of surface logic. It's the intuition for those deeper currents that you need to develop. That's not a left-brain recipe kind of thing --- there's no simple "recipe" for success in the real world (if there were, we would all be wildly successful all the time!!) Understanding those deeper kinds of logic draw on right-brain pattern-matching as well as emotional intelligence. If you could start building up your skills on that side, it would wildly complement your more rule-based left-brain understanding, and you would see a quantum leap in your performance.

Here's a blog in which I discuss some of these issues:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 78

GMAT Tests User
Re: State university's physics department requires that all tenu [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2012, 20:32
mikemcgarry wrote:
voodoochild wrote:
Conty911 - If the negation hurts the argument - that's it. It's an assumption. Necessary assumptions don't have to fill the entire gap. It just has to destroy the conclusion. Show me ANY one question from the official guide/official source that when negated, attacks the conclusion and still is the wrong answer choice. Let's wait for Mike's expert replies. He will surely help us.....

Voodoo

First of all, to be clear on the question at the head of this article. I would say (D) is completely correct, and (A) is a clever tempting incorrect answer. This is actually a brilliantly constructed fallacy to elicit in people's thinking. The pattern is

Group made a rule/law/policy for such-and-such reason.
Person X doesn't obey the rule/law/policy, but person X fulfills the philosophical "purpose" of the rule/law/policy in his own unique way.


Yes, this really appeals to the over-thinking philosophical part of us that likes to think that what really matters is not the rule/law/policy itself, but the underlying philosophical premise. It's as if the teenager inside each of us loves to imagine scenarios in which we could defy all the rules but still be justified. But think about how the real world works ---- cops, the IRS, military officers, the officers of a corporation, the INS, etc. etc. --- in most context, rules are rules, and the law is the law. If you run afoul of it, it's pretty black-and-white: there are consequences --- it doesn't matter with what you were philosophically aligned. You can have the best motivation, but if you run afoul of the law, you pay. Both Gandhi & Dr. M.L. King were very clear on this and totally accepted it.
Here, this physics department has a policy, and Hawkings is not following it. Plain and simple. Departments don't reward with leadership positions folks who don't follow policy. That's also just plain and simple. Even if (A) is true, even if Hawking's teaching is nationwide famous, award-winning pedagogy, etc. etc., it doesn't change the fact that he isn't following department policy. Rules are rules. Don't obey the rules, and there's consequences. It's that simple. That's why (A), though tempting, is wrong.
Those are my thoughts on this question.

On a separate issue: Voodoo Child. What the GMAT CR requires is flexible critical thinking. The patterns are always different, and in each new argument, there's a new angle to evaluate. Your approach is very rigid and rule-based --- I don't know how many times I have heard you say "this is always true" or "that is never true." You have clearly mastered the rule-based approach --- now, for you, progress will involve giving that up. Forswear use of the words "always", "never", "necessary", "sufficient", etc. etc. Completely give those words up. Stop pronouncing rules and defying others to produce OG examples to the contrary. (Incidentally, such attitudes & behaviors hardly will endear you to your future business school professors or colleagues.) Stop pronouncing rules and arguing in terms of rules: it makes you appear as if you are trying to sound like an expert or claim legitimacy for yourself, and none of that actually makes you more successful. Stop universalizing. Stop looking for the magic combinations of general truths with which to dissect each new CR. You have pursued this style as far as you can take it, and it's no longer paying off. Instead, make if your goal to see what is unique, different, new in each CR. What is crucial in GMAT CR happens in the particular, not in the general. Think in terms of deeper questions, of increase perceptivity, not in terms of more rigorously crafted analytical approaches. ------- Also, develop a keener sense for real world priorities -- there's no substitute for reading the newspaper every day, or the Economist magazine every week. There's no substitute for just listening to (or reading about) people in positions of leadership talking about their jobs and their priorities. Take the head of any wildly successful corporation, or successful politician, or army general -- that leader deeply understands real-world success. If you were to listen to his arguments, they might not all be logical on the surface, but there's a deeper logic of success-in-the-real-world that they follow. In all likelihood, some business school professors will try to communicate aspects of this deeper success-in-the-real-world logic, at least as it applies to business, and if you grill them with questions about "necessary" and "sufficient", you will lose out on a golden opportunity to learn and grow. ----- Of course, GMAT arguments are about surface logic at one level --- what must be true, what's the flaw, etc. --- but they are also always consistent with these much deeper forms of logic, such as success-in-the-real-world logic. Often, it's logic at that level that makes a profound difference between two answer choices that are similar in terms of surface logic. It's the intuition for those deeper currents that you need to develop. That's not a left-brain recipe kind of thing --- there's no simple "recipe" for success in the real world (if there were, we would all be wildly successful all the time!!) Understanding those deeper kinds of logic draw on right-brain pattern-matching as well as emotional intelligence. If you could start building up your skills on that side, it would wildly complement your more rule-based left-brain understanding, and you would see a quantum leap in your performance.

Here's a blog in which I discuss some of these issues:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)


Mike,
I really respect you. I have learned more from you than from any other expert on GMATClub and BTG. I didn't have any such intentions. I just repeated what one of the MGMAT instructors always says. An official GMAT answer is always CORRECT ( he recommends that we not solve questions from anything but official guide). I agree with your idea of flexible thinking. However, I don't agree with that on Assumption questions, especially necessary ones. An assumption, when negated, MUST kill the argument. No matter what language, leader or literature we talk about. I am not a 99%iler, nor even close to that. I could be wrong. However, I just said what the rule book says: an assumption, when negated, must kill the argument. This is not an official problem. I haven't seen any official problem that has two necessary assumption. I could be wrong. But then I need an evidence.


Thanks
Voodoo Child
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 78

GMAT Tests User
Re: State university's physics department requires that all [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2012, 20:35
talismaaniac wrote:
voodoochild wrote:
State university's physics department requires that all tenured professors be "deliverable-oriented" in other words, focused on the creation and publication of new technical research that would add to the reputation of the university. Professor HAwkings, however, is known for his unorthodox methods of teaching and popularity among undergraduate students. Therefore, Professor Hawkings is in direct violation of State University policy and shouldn't be considered a candidate for department chair.

The argument assumes that ...

a) unusual teaching styles and student popularity do not add to the reputation of the university.
b) Because of lack of unity among faculty, University discourages unorthodox style of teaching
c) A professor can be popular without focus on technical research
d) It is unlikely that a person who uses unorthodox methods of teaching could be focused on technical research.
e) Undergraduate students cannot judge the quality of teaching....



Why is A incorrect?




Hey! voodoo, is this really a sub 600 Q??
I understand that this is easy, but this cannot be a sub 600... please tell me that you have wrongly posted it in this section :shock:


Hey...Sorry missed this one. Yes, this is sub-600 level Q as per one of the major test prep companies (V_rit_s) :roll:
VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1095
Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 243 [0], given: 67

Re: State university's physics department requires that all [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2012, 13:51
I straight away answered as D

Yes A is a tempting answer only when core of argument is read wrongly.
Main conclusion has 2 part
1. Hawking is in violation of rules
2. Shouldn't be considered for dept head

The premise in the question focus on 1st part of conclusion second is just a result of it.
Hence if you start hunting for the missing link between " Hawking is in Violation because of unorthodox and being popular........." and "Professors should be focused on Creation and Publication of technical research......."
You will end up with D
Another way keeping in mind above explanation of conclusion Construct a logical construction you will end up constructing If you are unorthodox you are violating university rules and what is the rule is to be foccused on creation and publication that is what D says

Whereas A is just reinterpretation of Of premise its stated for assumption question you should look for unstated part of the argument that makes conclusion more strenghtened
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 1464
Followers: 208

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: State university's physics department requires that all [#permalink] New post 21 Nov 2013, 06:45
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: State university's physics department requires that all   [#permalink] 21 Nov 2013, 06:45
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
State Universities monaljain88 2 08 Aug 2013, 10:53
6 Experts publish their posts in the topic Michigan State University Broad 2012-Calling all Applicants DreamMba2012 30 14 Dec 2011, 09:10
2 A proposed law in State Q requires that all applicants bschool83 13 14 Aug 2011, 06:29
2 Calling all Ohio State University Fisher 2011 applicants thedarklard 61 28 Oct 2010, 05:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

State university's physics department requires that all

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.