Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
06 May 2016, 02:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Grateful for any feedback!
Candidate: Our city's students have suffered long enough. Over the mayor's four years in office, our district's math and science scores have hovered well below the national average, even while our average teacher's salary has increased. Our student-per-class ratio is laughable, yet he has made no progress on building a new school. He simply cannot be trusted with our children's future; if you care about education, I am the only candidate you can support.
The candidate's statement against the current mayor cannot be taken seriously. His argumentation has several flaws that damages the candidate's credibility.
First, the candidate makes the mayor the source of the problems in education. He claims that during the mayor's four years in office "math and science scores" are below the national average and that no new schools have been built. This is not convincing for the following reasons. It could be that even before the mayor math and science scores were below the average. This would prove that he is not the reason why scores bad. Another reason is that, even though math and science scores are below average, other scores of e.g. social sciences or sports are above national average. The scores of only two subjects (which students tend to find hard anyway) is not represantative for the quality of a whole school. There the mayor cannot be blamed as the origin of the problem. There could also be another reason why the mayor did not build any new schools. It probably was not because he does not support the local education, but rather that the city does not have the ressources and human capital to build and set up a new school. Hence it is not the mayors fault for not building new schools.
Second, the candidates fails to provide reasonable examples. The first one is the connectionen about the below average scores and the higher salaries. It can be inferred that given the increased salaries of teachers, they should be more motivated to teach and therefore increasing the score of the students. But this assumptions is wrong for many reasons. For a highly motivated teacher it should not be the case that money is an incentive. But rather he should feel the inner drive to teach children with the greatest endeavour. That is what makes a good teacher. Also, it is not only the teacher that influences children's scores but also their parents, situations and so on. Lastly in order to evaluate the quality of a school the candidate should first consider the school and its system first, rather than looking for any other reasons that might not even be correlated.
Lastly, given the first two flaws the conclusion of the candidate is too strong and inappropriate. When he proposes himself to support the cities education he fails to provide any plan. He does not say what he will change or where he will start to make changes.
it is therefore important that the candidate will review his statement and try to look for appropriate connections between scores and the different factors that influence them. If he wants to make education better this is essential to understand and analyse the situation better and tackle the problem itself.
Candidate: Our city's students have suffered long enough. Over the mayor's four years in office, our district's math and science scores have hovered well below the national average, even while our average teacher's salary has increased. Our student-per-class ratio is laughable, yet he has made no progress on building a new school. He simply cannot be trusted with our children's future; if you care about education, I am the only candidate you can support.
The candidate's statement against the current mayor cannot be taken seriously. His argumentation has several flaws that damages the candidate's credibility.
First, the candidate makes the mayor the source of the problems in education. He claims that during the mayor's four years in office "math and science scores" are below the national average and that no new schools have been built. This is not convincing for the following reasons. It could be that even before the mayor math and science scores were below the average. This would prove that he is not the reason why scores bad. Another reason is that, even though math and science scores are below average, other scores of e.g. social sciences or sports are above national average. The scores of only two subjects (which students tend to find hard anyway) is not represantative for the quality of a whole school. There the mayor cannot be blamed as the origin of the problem. There could also be another reason why the mayor did not build any new schools. It probably was not because he does not support the local education, but rather that the city does not have the ressources and human capital to build and set up a new school. Hence it is not the mayors fault for not building new schools.
Second, the candidates fails to provide reasonable examples. The first one is the connectionen about the below average scores and the higher salaries. It can be inferred that given the increased salaries of teachers, they should be more motivated to teach and therefore increasing the score of the students. But this assumptions is wrong for many reasons. For a highly motivated teacher it should not be the case that money is an incentive. But rather he should feel the inner drive to teach children with the greatest endeavour. That is what makes a good teacher. Also, it is not only the teacher that influences children's scores but also their parents, situations and so on. Lastly in order to evaluate the quality of a school the candidate should first consider the school and its system first, rather than looking for any other reasons that might not even be correlated.
Lastly, given the first two flaws the conclusion of the candidate is too strong and inappropriate. When he proposes himself to support the cities education he fails to provide any plan. He does not say what he will change or where he will start to make changes.
it is therefore important that the candidate will review his statement and try to look for appropriate connections between scores and the different factors that influence them. If he wants to make education better this is essential to understand and analyse the situation better and tackle the problem itself.
Moderators:
188 posts
