GRE General TestAnalytical WritingMedium
A university is considering implementing a new policy that requires all faculty members to publish at least one peer-reviewed article every two years to maintain their employment. The administration argues this will significantly enhance the university's research output and academic reputation. Which of the following, if true, identifies a major flaw in the administration's reasoning?
- AThe quality of peer-reviewed articles varies widely across different academic disciplines.
- BMany faculty members are primarily engaged in teaching and service, with research being a secondary focus.
- CAn increase in the *number* of publications does not necessarily correlate with an increase in *impact* or *quality* of research.
- DSome highly prestigious journals have acceptance rates below 10%, making regular publication challenging.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. An increase in the *number* of publications does not necessarily correlate with an increase in *impact* or *quality* of research.
The administration assumes that more publications directly equate to enhanced research output and academic reputation. The flaw is that quantity does not guarantee quality or impact. Forcing publication may lead to a higher volume of lower-quality work, which would not necessarily enhance reputation.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This points to a complexity but doesn't inherently flaw the argument that overall output and reputation would increase.
- B. While a practical challenge, it doesn't directly challenge the *link* between publication and reputation, but rather the feasibility for all faculty.
- D. This highlights a difficulty for faculty but doesn't directly negate the administration's premise about the *effect* of publication on reputation.
Flaw in Reasoning
A flaw in reasoning is an error in the logical structure of an argument that prevents the conclusion from necessarily following from the premises, even if the premises are true.
- Often involves a faulty assumption or a logical leap.
- Can be an illicit generalization or a misinterpretation of evidence.
- Undermines the argument's validity.
Memory trick: Look for the missing or broken piece in the logic puzzle.