I think the point might have been, you can be excellent at chemistryy, a real value to society with your ingenuity and rigor, and be no good at all at writing a

I think the point might have been, you can be excellent at chemistryy, a real value to society with your ingenuity and rigor, and be no good at all at writing about chemistry. A test like that would be fair if it were testing for journalists. Maybe every job needs at least a little bit of rounded basic skills like that, and so it's fair for the test to include some the same way. In that case I see no problem there either. But I don't know how out of balance the commenter is talking about. Was the test they are thinking of totally wrong or did it just include the appropriate portion of basic rounded literacy/competency, and if they sucked at it, then that was exactly the job the test is there to do is to guage those weaknesses?