|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
21 Jun 2014, 06:05
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.
The author starts out the argument by suggesting that, the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about the management issues is utterly false and outdated. The author goes further in explaining that a survey, conducted, indicated that 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to the survey questionnaires, expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign. It is clear that the author 's conclusion is weak and unsupported, mainly due to the inefficient and insufficient information provided.
Firstly, The author explains that when a survey was conducted, 79 percent of the 1200 workers who had taken the survey questionnaires, responded, expressing high levels of interest in the management issues. This can be considered true and viable, if the author had given a more crystal clear observation. On the other hand, The author failed to consider the plausibility that, out of all these workers who had attended the survey, how many of them actually knew what were the management-related issues. Some of the workers could have just presumed it would be something easy. The idea of management issues, in the eyes of a worker, could be something totally different. It is certain that the author has failed to elucidate this statement.
Secondly, The author assumes that, it was a common notion that workers were apathetic about the management issues. This statement provided by the author is clearly unclear and vague. It looks as if the author simply obtained certain statistics from a few companies, about the interest of the workers in management-related issues, and then came to the conclusion that workers aren't really interested in the general issues. This statement may be true but the author hasn't provided sufficient grounds to support it.
Thirdly, The author claims that, the survey that was conducted suggested that corporate restructuring and redesign are the either the main or the only important parts of the management issues. This statement is absurd. It is obvious that the survey, conducted, was incomplete. The author simply assumes that corporate redesign and restructuring are the major essentials of the management. This statement can only be strengthened if further, and concrete information is provided.
In summary, the argument above is highly flawed and absurd. By not providing essential and relevant facts, the author has not strengthened the argument.
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, one should properly understand the situation at hand and collect relevant information and facts to support the his/her conclusion.
If I've made any mistakes or missed out on some points please do point it out .
Thank you
The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs.
The author starts out the argument by suggesting that, the common notion that workers are generally apathetic about the management issues is utterly false and outdated. The author goes further in explaining that a survey, conducted, indicated that 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to the survey questionnaires, expressed a high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign. It is clear that the author 's conclusion is weak and unsupported, mainly due to the inefficient and insufficient information provided.
Firstly, The author explains that when a survey was conducted, 79 percent of the 1200 workers who had taken the survey questionnaires, responded, expressing high levels of interest in the management issues. This can be considered true and viable, if the author had given a more crystal clear observation. On the other hand, The author failed to consider the plausibility that, out of all these workers who had attended the survey, how many of them actually knew what were the management-related issues. Some of the workers could have just presumed it would be something easy. The idea of management issues, in the eyes of a worker, could be something totally different. It is certain that the author has failed to elucidate this statement.
Secondly, The author assumes that, it was a common notion that workers were apathetic about the management issues. This statement provided by the author is clearly unclear and vague. It looks as if the author simply obtained certain statistics from a few companies, about the interest of the workers in management-related issues, and then came to the conclusion that workers aren't really interested in the general issues. This statement may be true but the author hasn't provided sufficient grounds to support it.
Thirdly, The author claims that, the survey that was conducted suggested that corporate restructuring and redesign are the either the main or the only important parts of the management issues. This statement is absurd. It is obvious that the survey, conducted, was incomplete. The author simply assumes that corporate redesign and restructuring are the major essentials of the management. This statement can only be strengthened if further, and concrete information is provided.
In summary, the argument above is highly flawed and absurd. By not providing essential and relevant facts, the author has not strengthened the argument.
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, one should properly understand the situation at hand and collect relevant information and facts to support the his/her conclusion.
If I've made any mistakes or missed out on some points please do point it out .
Thank you
Moderators:
188 posts
