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 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.
11 Aug 2014, 22:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
"Seven years ago, Zephyr Industries had no problem recruiting qualified candidates from college campuses. This year, however, Zephyr has hired only three qualified interns, fewer than one-quarter of those hired in each of the three preceding years. This suggests that the company's recruitment efforts need to be revamped. Since a growing number of potential recruits learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards, Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and instead hire social media consultants."
The argument claims that Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and hire more social media consultants because there is an increasing number of potential recruits that learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a rather distorted view of the situation. The conclusion that the argument arrives at is based on assumptions which are not backed by evidence. Therefore, the argument presented here is unreasonable and flawed.
First, the argument claims that that company's recruitment efforts should undergo change because Zephyr only hired three interns this year. This claim appears to be a stretch as there is no apparent correlation between the two. There could be several other reasons as to why the company has hired so few interns this year as compared to its previous years. For example, if the company is trying to cut down costs, then this could explain the decrease in number of interns. Not only that, if the company is undergoing massive restructuring, then they might prefer to hire less interns until the restructuring is completed. There is not enough evidence provided in the argument to come to this assumption. The argument would have been much clearer if it gave evidence that there was no other plausible reason to explain the decrease in recruiting qualified interns.
Second, the argument readily assumes that there is a growing number of potential recruits that learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards. This again, is an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate where it got its source of information to arrive at this statement. To illustrate this, it could be possible that this claim was made because some important person said so. If the argument provided evidence that this claim was based on studies shown in the past, then it would be a more solid claim. Now, it just seems to be weak and unsupported.
Lastly, the conclusion that the argument arrives at does not make any sense. There is no explanation as to where the relationship between potential recruiters learning of career opportunities online and the company suspending its campus recruitment comes from. Just because a potential intern learns of a job opportunity online, does not mean that this person would want to work as a social media consultant. This just means that the social media is being used more and more, even to get jobs. Zephyr should take this into consideration and perhaps post more of its job openings online to take advantage of this media outbreak. This posting of jobs should be in addition to its campus recruiting in order to cater for other potential interns who have no access to computers or any social media.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above. If the argument provided sufficient evidence for its claims, it would have strengthened the argument greatly. In order to assess a situation effectively, full knowledge of all contributing factors are essential. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
The argument claims that Zephyr should suspend its campus recruitment efforts and hire more social media consultants because there is an increasing number of potential recruits that learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a rather distorted view of the situation. The conclusion that the argument arrives at is based on assumptions which are not backed by evidence. Therefore, the argument presented here is unreasonable and flawed.
First, the argument claims that that company's recruitment efforts should undergo change because Zephyr only hired three interns this year. This claim appears to be a stretch as there is no apparent correlation between the two. There could be several other reasons as to why the company has hired so few interns this year as compared to its previous years. For example, if the company is trying to cut down costs, then this could explain the decrease in number of interns. Not only that, if the company is undergoing massive restructuring, then they might prefer to hire less interns until the restructuring is completed. There is not enough evidence provided in the argument to come to this assumption. The argument would have been much clearer if it gave evidence that there was no other plausible reason to explain the decrease in recruiting qualified interns.
Second, the argument readily assumes that there is a growing number of potential recruits that learn of career opportunities via social media and online discussion boards. This again, is an unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate where it got its source of information to arrive at this statement. To illustrate this, it could be possible that this claim was made because some important person said so. If the argument provided evidence that this claim was based on studies shown in the past, then it would be a more solid claim. Now, it just seems to be weak and unsupported.
Lastly, the conclusion that the argument arrives at does not make any sense. There is no explanation as to where the relationship between potential recruiters learning of career opportunities online and the company suspending its campus recruitment comes from. Just because a potential intern learns of a job opportunity online, does not mean that this person would want to work as a social media consultant. This just means that the social media is being used more and more, even to get jobs. Zephyr should take this into consideration and perhaps post more of its job openings online to take advantage of this media outbreak. This posting of jobs should be in addition to its campus recruiting in order to cater for other potential interns who have no access to computers or any social media.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above. If the argument provided sufficient evidence for its claims, it would have strengthened the argument greatly. In order to assess a situation effectively, full knowledge of all contributing factors are essential. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
