|
|
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.
24 May 2021, 22:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please evaluate my essay and find out the errors and suggest me useful ideas.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“The common notion that workers are generally apathetic about management issues is false, or at least outdated: a recently published survey indicates that 79 percent of the nearly 1,200 workers who responded to survey questionnaires expressed a high level of interest in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.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the common notion that the workers are generally apathetic about management issues is either false or outdated. The conclusion of the argument is based on the results of a recently published survey that 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 benefit programs. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument cites the results of a survey without providing any details about the methodology and population used by the survey. In order to understand the results, we need to have more details about the survey. For example, it is critical to describe characteristics of the 1200 workers such as their age group, seniority level in their company, geographic location, size of the company, and type of the industry. As the size of the company and other key details of the survey are not mentioned, even a greater percentage of the surveyed workers can mislead to arrive at a common notion. Furthermore, the argument fails to mention other important details that are essential to validate the results of the survey. How were the questions designed? How was the survey conducted? Was it in-person, over a phone, or via social media? Without these details, the results of the survey cannot be viewed as evidence. The argument could have been much clearer if it would have explicitly stated all the details.
Secondly, the argument fails to clearly define the term 'management issues' and its scope. It is very likely that the interests of the workers vary, depending upon the type of management issues. For example, workers may be interested in short-term objectives, HR policies, profit sharing guidelines, etc. Such management issues are likely to have a direct impact on their work. However, other issues such as long-term vision, and succession plan may not be of great interest to them. Thus, workers' high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefit programs does not necessarily indicate that they are pathetic about all management issues. The argument could have been a lot more convincing if the management issues would have been well-defined.
Lastly, the argument does not specify the organization that conducted the survey. Does the organization have good expertise to tackle such management surveys? Is the organization or the author of the corporate newsletter biased towards the conclusion? As it is well-known that we can interpret the same data differently and draw conflicting conclusions. Without answers to these questions, one is left with impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument needs to provide the raw data such as individual responses to individual questions.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. Hence, the argument is disputed and indefensible. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author would have provided all the sufficient and necessary information to support the claim. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Posted from my mobile device
The following appeared in the editorial section of a corporate newsletter.
“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that the common notion that the workers are generally apathetic about management issues is either false or outdated. The conclusion of the argument is based on the results of a recently published survey that 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 benefit programs. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument cites the results of a survey without providing any details about the methodology and population used by the survey. In order to understand the results, we need to have more details about the survey. For example, it is critical to describe characteristics of the 1200 workers such as their age group, seniority level in their company, geographic location, size of the company, and type of the industry. As the size of the company and other key details of the survey are not mentioned, even a greater percentage of the surveyed workers can mislead to arrive at a common notion. Furthermore, the argument fails to mention other important details that are essential to validate the results of the survey. How were the questions designed? How was the survey conducted? Was it in-person, over a phone, or via social media? Without these details, the results of the survey cannot be viewed as evidence. The argument could have been much clearer if it would have explicitly stated all the details.
Secondly, the argument fails to clearly define the term 'management issues' and its scope. It is very likely that the interests of the workers vary, depending upon the type of management issues. For example, workers may be interested in short-term objectives, HR policies, profit sharing guidelines, etc. Such management issues are likely to have a direct impact on their work. However, other issues such as long-term vision, and succession plan may not be of great interest to them. Thus, workers' high level of interest in the topics of corporate restructuring and redesign of benefit programs does not necessarily indicate that they are pathetic about all management issues. The argument could have been a lot more convincing if the management issues would have been well-defined.
Lastly, the argument does not specify the organization that conducted the survey. Does the organization have good expertise to tackle such management surveys? Is the organization or the author of the corporate newsletter biased towards the conclusion? As it is well-known that we can interpret the same data differently and draw conflicting conclusions. Without answers to these questions, one is left with impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument needs to provide the raw data such as individual responses to individual questions.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. Hence, the argument is disputed and indefensible. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author would have provided all the sufficient and necessary information to support the claim. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Posted from my mobile device
25 May 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please don't post your one essay multiple times on the forum. I have replied this essay already. This topic is being archived.
Thank you
Thank you
ukc1998
Moderators:
188 posts
