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 arguement claims that good and affordable allday child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields as typically, scientists must work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers. It also calls for the requirements for career advancement to be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent. This argument is weak and relies on assumptions that have not been supported by any evidence. It can easily be show to suffer from many flaws.
Firstly, the arguments main assumption that scientists must work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers is unsubstantiated. No evidence or data has been provided to support this. There is no evidence of correlation between the number of hours worked and its relation to the advancement of scientist's careers. Further evidence is needed to show that 60-80 hours is a typical number and not just something assumed for arguments sake.
Secondly, there is no evidence in support of the assumption that there is a relationship between the avaialbility of good and affordable day care to both male and female scientits and the advancement of their careers. Evidence should be provided not only to show that there is a correlation between the two but also to show that good and affordable day care is not currently avaialble.
Finally, the part of the conclusion that requirements for career advancement must be made flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of the day with a parent needs additional support. It needs to be shown that current requirements for career development are not flexible for the argument to hold. It could easily be the case that preschool-age children can already spend siginificant portion of their day with a parent.
Therefore, for the reasons listed above, it is easily seen that the argument is logically weak and needs substantial amount of evidence to support it. The arguement can be strengthened if correlation between number of hours worked and career advancement is shown and how good and affordable care is needed by scientists to advance their careers.
==============================
All comments are welcome.
"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 arguement claims that good and affordable allday child care must be made available to both male and female scientists if they are to advance in their fields as typically, scientists must work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers. It also calls for the requirements for career advancement to be made more flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of each day with a parent. This argument is weak and relies on assumptions that have not been supported by any evidence. It can easily be show to suffer from many flaws.
Firstly, the arguments main assumption that scientists must work 60 to 80 hours a week if they hope to further their careers is unsubstantiated. No evidence or data has been provided to support this. There is no evidence of correlation between the number of hours worked and its relation to the advancement of scientist's careers. Further evidence is needed to show that 60-80 hours is a typical number and not just something assumed for arguments sake.
Secondly, there is no evidence in support of the assumption that there is a relationship between the avaialbility of good and affordable day care to both male and female scientits and the advancement of their careers. Evidence should be provided not only to show that there is a correlation between the two but also to show that good and affordable day care is not currently avaialble.
Finally, the part of the conclusion that requirements for career advancement must be made flexible so that preschool-age children can spend a significant portion of the day with a parent needs additional support. It needs to be shown that current requirements for career development are not flexible for the argument to hold. It could easily be the case that preschool-age children can already spend siginificant portion of their day with a parent.
Therefore, for the reasons listed above, it is easily seen that the argument is logically weak and needs substantial amount of evidence to support it. The arguement can be strengthened if correlation between number of hours worked and career advancement is shown and how good and affordable care is needed by scientists to advance their careers.
==============================
All comments are welcome.
