-
parkkishore
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:36 am
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 all-day 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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
This editorial argues that, since career advancement for scientists typically requires 60 to 80 hours of work per week, affordable all-day child care must be made available to scientists of both genders if they are to advance in their fields.
Additionally, the editorial urges that requirements for career advancement be made more flexible to insure that pre-school children can spend a significant amount of time each day with a parent.
This argument is problematic in two crucial aspects.
Major problem in this argument is that the author suggests the scientists shall spent 60 to 80 working hours in a week if they hope to further their careers. and again he suggests that the career advancement requirements must be made more flexible so that the preschool age children can spend a significant portion of each with a parent. Normally both the suggestions cannot hold good in any single occasion.
Another problem is that the author assumed that all the scientists or at least most of them will have a pre-school -age children and provided his argument. But he missed to provide about the scientists who either do not have children or the children they have might be old enough to take care of themselves. Hence it is doubtful that these recommendations will have widespread support.
While author has several crucial points in this argument, it will get wide acceptance if he rectifies the above mentioned conflict between his own recommendations. And also he should address his recommendations towards the persons who either childless scientists or the scientists have self caring children.
In sum, if the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidential support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
"Scientists must typically work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers; consequently, good and
affordable all-day 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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
This editorial argues that, since career advancement for scientists typically requires 60 to 80 hours of work per week, affordable all-day child care must be made available to scientists of both genders if they are to advance in their fields.
Additionally, the editorial urges that requirements for career advancement be made more flexible to insure that pre-school children can spend a significant amount of time each day with a parent.
This argument is problematic in two crucial aspects.
Major problem in this argument is that the author suggests the scientists shall spent 60 to 80 working hours in a week if they hope to further their careers. and again he suggests that the career advancement requirements must be made more flexible so that the preschool age children can spend a significant portion of each with a parent. Normally both the suggestions cannot hold good in any single occasion.
Another problem is that the author assumed that all the scientists or at least most of them will have a pre-school -age children and provided his argument. But he missed to provide about the scientists who either do not have children or the children they have might be old enough to take care of themselves. Hence it is doubtful that these recommendations will have widespread support.
While author has several crucial points in this argument, it will get wide acceptance if he rectifies the above mentioned conflict between his own recommendations. And also he should address his recommendations towards the persons who either childless scientists or the scientists have self caring children.
In sum, if the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidential support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
