GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文二

　　60. This editorial argues that, since career advancement for scientists typically require:

　　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. Moreover, 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 respects.

　　The major problem with the view expressed in the article is that inconsistent

　　recommendations are endorsed in the argument. On the one hand, scientists are urged to

　　put their children in all-day child-care facilities in order to advance their careers. On the

　　other hand, they are encouraged to spend a significant amount of time each day with

　　their children. Obviously, scientists cannot be expected to adhere to both of these

　　recommendations.

　　Another problem is that the recommendations are based on the assumption that e

　　or at least most. scientists have young or preschool-age children. But the editorial

　　provides no evidence to support this assumption, nor is this assumption very likely to be

　　true. Since, childless scientists or scientists whose children are old enough t: take care of

　　themselves will have no need for the services advocated in this article it is doubtful that

　　these recommendations will receive much widespread support.

　　In conclusion, this argument is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author must

　　show that most scientists have preschool children and consequently are in need c the

　　recommended services. Additionally, the author must address and resolve the apparent

　　conflict between the recommendations.