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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
16 May 2015, 07:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
The editorial has reasoned that the improved performance of the students and the reduction in the dropout rate are direct results of introduction of interactive computer instruction in three academic subjects. The argument has blatantly omitted certain very important considerations before making a conclusion.
Firstly, the editorial has not taken into consideration any other change introduced in Nova High School, such as introduction of new teachers or a change in the teaching style or inauguration of certain extracurricular activities/facilities which may have made education more interesting for students thereby abrogating them from dropping out. Moreover, the school may have improved its admission criteria or may have trained students well and the reduction in dropout rates and the impressive achievements might just be because of better, more serious students this year as compared to previous years.
Secondly, the article has also not considered external factors. For example, there may have been an improvement in transportation facilities, which may have made commutation easier and faster for students; or maybe the school is in a backward area where students would also work to augment family income, and the government has enacted or stringently implemented labor laws to prevent child labor, or has provided certain incentive to families to encourage parents to let children complete their education without any hindrances.
Thirdly, the editorial has mentioned that interactive computer instructions have been started only for three subjects. Now, the article has failed to mention the level at which this facility has been started. Maybe the facility has been started only for, e.g. the 1st or the 5th standard. This can, in no way, explain the reduction in dropout rate of the whole school. Perhaps if the article would have considered analyzing standard-wise changes on dropout rates with data on the level and kind of subjects this facility has been started for, the mentioned improvements could have been understood better.
Fourthly, the article has not reported the kind of achievements of the school and that whether there is any correlation in the computer interactive technology with those achievements at all. It may have been possible that the adaptive technology has been introduced for mathematics, geography and science while the achievements might relate to sports.
Fifthly, the editorial has made a categorical conclusion that the school board should allocate more money for the technology and that all schools in the district must adopt interactive computer instruction technology throughout the curriculum. This recommendation seems farfetched. The article does not mention as to how and in what way can the increased allocation of money to the particular technology help the school further. Moreover on one hand the article has talked about the effects of implementation of the technology in only one school and that too in only three subjects. This by itself is diminutive evidence, if at all it can even be called that, to attribute to the mentioned achievements of the school. On the other hand without seeing the effects of implementation of the technology throughout the curriculum of just this very school and without considering any evidence of effects of such an action on another school in the district, how can the article make such an absolute recommendation? Moreover, what are the ends that are to be achieved by adopting the technology? It is not even known whether other schools in the district suffer from the problems being suffered by Nova High School. So this recommendation is highly questionable.
Thus while the editorial is written to make recommendations to improve the education scenario of the district, it has attributed undue importance to only one factor and has failed to acknowledge sundry other factors responsible for improving Nova High School’s performance in the two mentioned areas. Moreover, without looking at the shortfalls or problems in other schools, the article has made a very myopic recommendation for other them. The article can be improved if the aforementioned views and thoughts are incorporated in it.
Firstly, the editorial has not taken into consideration any other change introduced in Nova High School, such as introduction of new teachers or a change in the teaching style or inauguration of certain extracurricular activities/facilities which may have made education more interesting for students thereby abrogating them from dropping out. Moreover, the school may have improved its admission criteria or may have trained students well and the reduction in dropout rates and the impressive achievements might just be because of better, more serious students this year as compared to previous years.
Secondly, the article has also not considered external factors. For example, there may have been an improvement in transportation facilities, which may have made commutation easier and faster for students; or maybe the school is in a backward area where students would also work to augment family income, and the government has enacted or stringently implemented labor laws to prevent child labor, or has provided certain incentive to families to encourage parents to let children complete their education without any hindrances.
Thirdly, the editorial has mentioned that interactive computer instructions have been started only for three subjects. Now, the article has failed to mention the level at which this facility has been started. Maybe the facility has been started only for, e.g. the 1st or the 5th standard. This can, in no way, explain the reduction in dropout rate of the whole school. Perhaps if the article would have considered analyzing standard-wise changes on dropout rates with data on the level and kind of subjects this facility has been started for, the mentioned improvements could have been understood better.
Fourthly, the article has not reported the kind of achievements of the school and that whether there is any correlation in the computer interactive technology with those achievements at all. It may have been possible that the adaptive technology has been introduced for mathematics, geography and science while the achievements might relate to sports.
Fifthly, the editorial has made a categorical conclusion that the school board should allocate more money for the technology and that all schools in the district must adopt interactive computer instruction technology throughout the curriculum. This recommendation seems farfetched. The article does not mention as to how and in what way can the increased allocation of money to the particular technology help the school further. Moreover on one hand the article has talked about the effects of implementation of the technology in only one school and that too in only three subjects. This by itself is diminutive evidence, if at all it can even be called that, to attribute to the mentioned achievements of the school. On the other hand without seeing the effects of implementation of the technology throughout the curriculum of just this very school and without considering any evidence of effects of such an action on another school in the district, how can the article make such an absolute recommendation? Moreover, what are the ends that are to be achieved by adopting the technology? It is not even known whether other schools in the district suffer from the problems being suffered by Nova High School. So this recommendation is highly questionable.
Thus while the editorial is written to make recommendations to improve the education scenario of the district, it has attributed undue importance to only one factor and has failed to acknowledge sundry other factors responsible for improving Nova High School’s performance in the two mentioned areas. Moreover, without looking at the shortfalls or problems in other schools, the article has made a very myopic recommendation for other them. The article can be improved if the aforementioned views and thoughts are incorporated in it.
01 Oct 2020, 09:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.
This post was generated automatically.
Moderator:
