free_LUNCH

I am finally done with the GMAT..

Score 720

Verbal – 37

Quants – 51

AWA – 6.0

required … to

between x and y

the rivals x and y

as many … as

so x that y

x is expected to y

to credit x with

as much as ; not so much as

seem to indicate

depends on whether

are in danger of

the same to x as to y

estimated to be

in contrast with x, y ; in contrast to x, y ; unlike x, y

x is more than y

A recent nationwide study of high schools reveals that the percentage of students who graduate on time is higher for private schools than for public schools. For this reason, Bedford Falls parents who want their children to graduate from high school in time should send their children to private schools.

The argument that Bedford Falls parents should send their children to private schools so that they can graduate in time based on a statistical fact is not entirely convincing. Though the statistical data may be correct, it may not necessarily true for schools in Bedford Falls. Thus there are many more answers that need to be provided to plug the holes in this argument.

Firstly, the statistical data presented, is based on a nationwide survey. It may be true that of all students graduating in the country, those that pass out in time are from private schools. But this may not necessarily be true of Bedford Falls. It is highly possible that students of public schools in Bedford Falls, graduate in time and have a better track record than those students who belong to the private schools. Sufficient data about schools located in the Bedford Falls should be provided before a convincing conclusion can be made of the argument presented. 

Secondly, there has been no analysis presented regarding the reasons behind students not graduating in time from public schools. It could be possible that the public schools which are the cause of the result of the survey attract students from families who cannot afford private schools. The students who come to these schools may have to work after school to support their families and hence are unable to graduate in time. This may not be a problem in Bedford Falls where the median income of families is sufficiently high and the children can focus completely on their studies to graduate in time. Hence, there is no comparison data present in the argument between similarities and /or dissimilarities between families in Bedford schools and those nationwide. 

Lastly, there is no direct comparison between the public schools and private schools in Bedford Falls. This is a very important and critical piece of information that is missing from this argument. It is highly possible that both types of schools here have the same curriculum and have teachers who are equally capable. If such is the scenario than it does not matter where the parents send their children to study because their graduating in time will then solely be based on their involvement and commitment.

Thus, the argument is not fully convincing in the manner present. The comparison should be between the schools in Bedford Falls and the conclusion should not entirely be based on a nationwide survey. The nationwide survey can be a result of more generic demographic information that may not pertain to Bedford Falls.

Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flights.

The argument that only unmanned probes and satellites should be sent to space to gather data on the grounds of reducing cost and risk to human life is a flawed one. There are many holes in the current argument that needs to be filled up.

Firstly, the argument does not state the reasons why humans were sent to space in the first place if everything that needs to be done can be performed by the probes and satellites. Humans, possibly, are sent to space to serve a different purpose like for finding out how the human body reacts to the conditions of outer space. A clear distinction needs to be made between the activities performed by satellites and humans and evidence needs to be provided that the probes can actually perform the tasks of humans.

Secondly, the argument does not mention whether the risks that humans posed in the early years of space exploration have been mitigated by technological advances or not. It seems like the argument assumes that the risk involved cannot be countered and hence only probes should be sent for gathering data from space. There may have been learning from earlier disasters and our scientists may have tackled all that they have faced until now. If this were true, the conclusion of the author will stand weak. Hence the author needs to provide concrete information on this front to justify his conclusion.

Lastly, the argument does not compare the cost of sending a human to space versus the cost involved in making the probe and then sending it to space. It is highly possible that the cost of research and manufacturing a probe with capabilities similar to a human being is very high and hence humans offer a better and more reliable alternative. The exact cost comparison needs to be provided in order to draw out a conclusion from this argument.

Thus, the argument, as stated, is not entirely convincing. In order to justify the conclusion, the author needs to provide a cost comparison, along with the activities and capabilities that probes and humans bring to the table. Also, the author should reason that the risks have not declined and it is still very dangerous to send a human to space. Only then, will the argument will be able to convey its message convincingly.

No employee of any business, public or private, should have complete autonomy; even employees at the highest level of management require some supervision.

The issue whether employees of an institution be given complete autonomy or not is a debatable one. On one hand, some say that they should be given complete autonomy so as not to hinder creativity by means of red tape bureaucracy but on the other hand, some argue that the employees require supervision to control any wrongdoings as well as to monitor and gauge their progress. I believe that some supervision is required for employees of both public and private businesses for many reasons.

Firstly, in the past years we have seen top executives of many public companies like Enron and WorldCom caught doing illegal activities for the sole motive of making money. They have been known to fudge company results to increase their share prices and make profits by selling them. All these can be stopped if their activities are closely monitored by higher bodies like IRA, FAA and etc.

Secondly, if the employees are not monitored there will be no gauge of their performance and whether they are executing their tasks as necessary. The employees, of all ranks, can start taking their task very casually thereby neglecting the goals of the company because there is no one to monitor them. Agreed that we need to give vent to their creativity but at the same time we need to check the resources and finances of the company providing support to these employees. Classic example of this scenario is Google where employees are given a free reign to give life to their ideas, but at the same time there is someone who monitors all their creative outcomes from a close perspective.

Lastly, to make an employee accountable he or she needs to report to a person or a group of people so that his performance and productivity can be measured and improved if necessary. Presence of a board of governor is a necessity to achieve this goal for employees who rank very high in a company. We have seen examples in companies like GE where each person is accountable in terms of his targets that he sets out in the beginning of the year. Because of this accountability, GE ranks among the top 10 companies worldwide.

Thus, even though we need to provide some autonomy to the employees to make sure they do not feel ‘looked-upon-their-shoulders’ but at the same time there are long term benefits for both the company and the employee when their is some supervision and accountability involved.

Quants – 51, Verbal – 41, Score – 730

Primary and secondary education should focus on training students for the highly specialized jobs of the future, rather than on providing them with a broad range of non-specific skills and information.

The issue whether primary and secondary education should focus on specialized jobs or broad range of non-specific skills is a debatable one. On one hand some say that it should train youngsters for highly specialized jobs so that it is easy for them to gain employment and perform well in their jobs. On the other hand, some say that it is important for everyone to learn and understand other subjects as well. In my opinion, for the complete development of one’s personality he should be exposed to more broad range of subjects apart from his specialty. 

Firstly, focused training is good but not enough. To conduct his day to day life, one has to be knowledgeable in other skills as well. A good businessman has to have analytical skills, social skills as well as complete understanding of his business. If he is a manufacturer then it is important to know the science behind what he is manufacturing. If the youngsters are just taught what they have to practice in their later years they will be left devoid of such skills which could ultimately hamper their career and progress in life. 

Secondly, a broad range of knowledge makes a man smart, outward and more sociable. A man with limited knowledge is not able to interact much outside his community; even there his discussions revolve around the same topics. He is not able to appreciate the beauty of other things. For e.g. if we would not have taught science, we would not have been able to appreciate new technologies or even understand basic phenomenon occurring around us. If we would not have been taught history, we would not have been able to appreciate the value of freedom. 

Lastly, how can a person know what he wants to do or practice in later part of his life? He has to be given a chance to choose among various subjects the vocation that he wants to follow in life. Suppose Mozart was taught mathematics from his early age, he would have never grown up to be a musician. Suppose Steve Jobs was only taught art in his early years he would not have become the co-owner of Apple. Hence, during the developmental years of one’s life, he should be exposed to various fields of knowledge from where he can make a conscious and intelligent decision about what he wants his profession to be. 

Even though I agree that some skills for the specialized job has to be given, but that can be provided after a persons secondary education is complete. By this time he can understand various subjects, has competed against like students and has made a decision about his or her future. After he has made that decision, he can immerse himself in the training for the highly specialized job.

Any political organization than advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohiitied for operating within our nation.Such groups are detrimental to the society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems.

The argument that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be completely prohibited from operating within the nation just because they are detrimental to the society is a flawed one. There are many holes in the argument that needs to be filled.

Firstly, nothing has been mentioned in the argument about what are the agenda and the policies of the political organization. They may have some very strong, powerful and most importantly, apt policies that they want implemented. But there are opponents who would not allow such policies to be enforced and are crushing any attempts by this political party. The use of violence, in that case, becomes a necessity to come into power and do well for the country. Many countries have known to achieve freedom by a military uprising and/or violent attacks on the oppressors. If they would not have done so, they would be still serving as serfs to their evil masters.

Secondly, it is baseless to say that short-term violent solution can lead to long-term serious problems. Instead, a short-term violent approach can be a faster and quicker method to achieve a solution than a longer approach of unending diplomatic talks and negotiations. In the latter, it is always seen that poor citizens bear the brunt of time and exploitive diplomats. Kashmir has been a center of debate among Pakistan and India. Talks have been going on for such a long time that ultimately now the situation has completely gone out of hand. When the issue had initially erupted a military solution to this problem would have once and for all taken care of the issue.

Lastly, we all know that there are political parties, who in spite of not using violence, are detrimental to the society by virtue of their being sly crooks who work for their own benefits and not the country. They take bribes, support nepotism, and exploit the citizens because of their power and positions. They can be much more problematic than those parties denounced in the argument. Shouldn’t such parties that play dirty politics be prohibited from operating within the nation? By the same argument that they can be detrimental in the long run for the country, they should surely be banned.

Thus, the argument is not entirely convincing. The author should justify that the motive behind the political party to use violence is equally bad as violence itself. He should give examples of how such political parties have created serious long-term problems and why providing a peaceful solution is the best way to solve any problem. Only then the argument will be able to convey its message convincingly.

Quants – 51, Verbal – 38, Score – 710

Some have argued that the salaries of corporate executives should be linked to those of their lowest-paid employees. This, they argue, will improve relations between management and workers, reducing costly labor disputes and increasing worker productivity. What these people overlook, however, is that these high salaries are necessary to attract the best managers, the individuals whose decisions have the greatest impact on the overall well-being of the company.

The issue whether the salaries of corporate executives be made a fixed multiple of the the lowest paid employee is a debatable one. On one hand, some argue that this will enable to improve relationship between the top and lower tier thereby increasing faith. On the other hand, some argue that this will make it difficult for a corporate to attract the best talents in the industry only because salaries become virtually non-negotiable. In my opinion, the salaries of the top executive should be linked to the lowest paid employees for various reasons.

Firstly, it has lately been seen that the top executives switch jobs very quickly. Whenever someone agrees to pay them more, they are quick to change ships. When this happens not only the corporate suffers but the executive fails to provide any service or value add to the company. This is all because of the salaries being negotiable and flexible. If the salaries are made fixed relative to the lowest paid employees, executives will join a company fully aware of what to expect and will dedicate his whole tenure working for the well being of the company. For e.g. we know of many executives like Steve Jobs and the Founders of Google who hardly take any take home salary but are working hard to keep their companies at the top.

Secondly, linking the salaries help in increasing the faith and respect of the lower tier for their top management. Not only the lower tier will be content, the shareholders of the company will feel safe knowing the fact that the money earned by the company is being used for its own constructive use and not for filling the coffers of its executives. This will lead to a healthy atmosphere throughout the organization and the employees will be able to provide better productivity.

Lastly, as far as attracting the talent is concerned, there are other ways in which this can be achieved. For e.g. bonuses can be linked to performance, in terms of profits, which can motivate top talents to give their best to the job. They can be bought on board with a bonus component attached which, once they show their talents and make profits for the company, is disbursed to them. Bonuses can be in form of cash or stock options. For e.g. top talents who join a startup do not have enormous salaries, but work really hard. Stock options help pay off their hard work once the fruits of their hard work bloom.

My strong belief is that the salaries cannot be made so flexible and stretchable that executives exploit it and make good money for themselves in short time. This will neither help the company nor the economy in general. Once way to make it slightly fixed is by linking it to the lowest paid employee’s salary and that is what I am strongly in favor of.