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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
27 Jul 2012, 02:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
. The following appeared as part of an article in a popular science magazine.
“Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable allday child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent.”
The argument claims that if scientists want to advance in their careers they have to work 60 to 80 hours a week. Consequently, scientists have to provide their children a good child care, which will be replacement for their parents for part of a day. Also, requirements for advancement in career must be made more flexible so that children every day spend certain amount of time with their parents. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that scientist are the only people who have to work long hours and sacrifice private life in order to further their careers. This statement is a stretch since the argument claims that people with occupancies other that in science field do not have to work hard and long in order to advance in careers. Every employee who wants to achieve success in career has to be hardworking and prepared to do long hours. The argument could have been much clearer if it provided additional information that scientist job is not the same as any other job.
Second, the argument claims without justification that requirements for career advancement must be more flexible. This is again very weak and unsupported claim since the argument does not provide enough evidence to support its claim. To illustrate, it is absolutely possible that requirements provide sufficient time interval that scientist can use to spend time with their children. If the argument had provided evidence that scientist do not have enough time to spend with their families that the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case whether scientists job differs from other jobs and whether current requirements for career advancement are too strict. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
“Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and affordable allday child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields. Moreover, requirements for career advancement must be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent.”
The argument claims that if scientists want to advance in their careers they have to work 60 to 80 hours a week. Consequently, scientists have to provide their children a good child care, which will be replacement for their parents for part of a day. Also, requirements for advancement in career must be made more flexible so that children every day spend certain amount of time with their parents. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that scientist are the only people who have to work long hours and sacrifice private life in order to further their careers. This statement is a stretch since the argument claims that people with occupancies other that in science field do not have to work hard and long in order to advance in careers. Every employee who wants to achieve success in career has to be hardworking and prepared to do long hours. The argument could have been much clearer if it provided additional information that scientist job is not the same as any other job.
Second, the argument claims without justification that requirements for career advancement must be more flexible. This is again very weak and unsupported claim since the argument does not provide enough evidence to support its claim. To illustrate, it is absolutely possible that requirements provide sufficient time interval that scientist can use to spend time with their children. If the argument had provided evidence that scientist do not have enough time to spend with their families that the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case whether scientists job differs from other jobs and whether current requirements for career advancement are too strict. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
27 Jul 2012, 12:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Stiv,
This essay is, unfortunately, weak, and it gets a 3.
It's well written and well organized, but the logic falls flat. Your second paragraph in particular is completely out of scope--the author's argument does not involve members of non-scientific careers, either directly or tangentially. He therefore does not assume that "only" scientists need this care! Your third paragraph is more on the mark, but it's very, very vague. You need to explore alternatives here, to explain how scientists can advance their careers without flexible requirements, or alternately, why it's acceptable for scientists with children to not advance careers.
Here's a few flaws in this stem, to help you out!
1) The author assumes that scientists working 60-80 hours a week aren't earning enough to afford child-care on their own.
2) The author singles out pre-school age children without justification, failing to explain why newborns and first-graders shouldnt' also spend time with parents
3) The author fails to establish that it is problematic for scientists with children to advance their careers
4) The author fails to establish that it's useful to have children spend a "significant portion" of each day with a parent.
5) The author fails to consider the proportion of scientists who have a stay-at-home spouse.
This essay is, unfortunately, weak, and it gets a 3.
It's well written and well organized, but the logic falls flat. Your second paragraph in particular is completely out of scope--the author's argument does not involve members of non-scientific careers, either directly or tangentially. He therefore does not assume that "only" scientists need this care! Your third paragraph is more on the mark, but it's very, very vague. You need to explore alternatives here, to explain how scientists can advance their careers without flexible requirements, or alternately, why it's acceptable for scientists with children to not advance careers.
Here's a few flaws in this stem, to help you out!
1) The author assumes that scientists working 60-80 hours a week aren't earning enough to afford child-care on their own.
2) The author singles out pre-school age children without justification, failing to explain why newborns and first-graders shouldnt' also spend time with parents
3) The author fails to establish that it is problematic for scientists with children to advance their careers
4) The author fails to establish that it's useful to have children spend a "significant portion" of each day with a parent.
5) The author fails to consider the proportion of scientists who have a stay-at-home spouse.
Moderator:
