Text 1Researchers studying workplace motivation have developed comprehensive frameworks that categorize employee behavior patterns into distinct types...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Researchers studying workplace motivation have developed comprehensive frameworks that categorize employee behavior patterns into distinct types based on psychological drivers. By systematically organizing observations according to these established categories, researchers can identify consistent trends and develop evidence-based recommendations for management practices. This structured approach provides clarity and enables meaningful comparisons across different workplace environments.
Text 2
Organizing workplace behavior research into rigid categories may oversimplify the complexity of human motivation. Researchers who rely too heavily on predetermined frameworks risk missing the subtle variations and contextual factors that shape individual responses to workplace conditions. Additionally, this categorical thinking might discourage attention to unique patterns that don't fit established models but could offer valuable insights.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view categorizing workplace behavior in research?
The author of Text 1 emphasizes the importance of psychological drivers, while the author of Text 2 focuses on environmental factors in workplace motivation.
The author of Text 1 argues for evidence-based management practices, whereas the author of Text 2 prefers intuition-based approaches to employee relations.
While the author of Text 1 considers systematic categorization helpful for research, the author of Text 2 believes such approaches may overlook important nuances.
The author of Text 1 supports comparing different workplace environments, while the author of Text 2 argues that each workplace is too unique for meaningful comparison.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: 'Researchers studying workplace motivation have developed comprehensive frameworks that categorize employee behavior patterns into distinct types based on psychological drivers.' |
|
| 'By systematically organizing observations according to these established categories, researchers can identify consistent trends and develop evidence-based recommendations for management practices.' |
|
| 'This structured approach provides clarity and enables meaningful comparisons across different workplace environments.' |
|
| Text 2: 'Organizing workplace behavior research into rigid categories may oversimplify the complexity of human motivation.' |
|
| 'Researchers who rely too heavily on predetermined frameworks risk missing the subtle variations and contextual factors that shape individual responses to workplace conditions.' |
|
| 'Additionally, this categorical thinking might discourage attention to unique patterns that do not fit established models but could offer valuable insights.' |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Text 1 argues that systematic categorization of workplace behavior is beneficial for research, while Text 2 argues that such rigid categorization can be counterproductive.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents categorization as a structured, beneficial approach that provides clarity and enables useful comparisons. Text 2 counters by arguing that rigid categorization oversimplifies human complexity and causes researchers to miss important nuances and unique insights.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Text 1 sees categorization as helpful and beneficial for research - it provides clarity, enables comparisons, and leads to evidence-based recommendations
- Text 2 sees categorization as problematic - it oversimplifies complexity, causes researchers to miss important variations, and discourages attention to unique patterns
- The key difference is that Text 1 emphasizes the benefits of systematic categorization while Text 2 emphasizes the drawbacks and limitations
The author of Text 1 emphasizes the importance of psychological drivers, while the author of Text 2 focuses on environmental factors in workplace motivation.
- This choice focuses on what each text emphasizes (psychological drivers vs. environmental factors) rather than their different attitudes toward categorization itself
The author of Text 1 argues for evidence-based management practices, whereas the author of Text 2 prefers intuition-based approaches to employee relations.
- Text 2 does not advocate for intuition-based approaches - it criticizes rigid categorization but does not propose intuition as the alternative
While the author of Text 1 considers systematic categorization helpful for research, the author of Text 2 believes such approaches may overlook important nuances.
- Perfectly captures the core difference: Text 1 presents systematic categorization as helpful for research (provides clarity, enables comparisons, identifies trends) while Text 2 argues such approaches may overlook important nuances (miss subtle variations, contextual factors, and unique patterns)
The author of Text 1 supports comparing different workplace environments, while the author of Text 2 argues that each workplace is too unique for meaningful comparison.
- Text 2 does not argue that workplaces are too unique for meaningful comparison - its concern is about rigid categorization missing nuances, not about the impossibility of comparison itself