Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Dec 1310:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
Dec 1411:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.- Dec 15
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!
27 Jul 2019, 08:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
"In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city's art museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city's art museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television."
------------------ I'm working on it...
The argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television for visual art programs. Stated in the way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the number of people who visit the city’s museum is due to the increase in the number of TV programs about visual arts. However, the author seems to fail to demonstrate to the correlation between the two factors. For example, the workable hours of city residents could have been reduced since last five years, resulting increase in museum vitis. Clearly, there could be many other reasons that might cause museum visits and if it explicitly stated, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
Second, the argument is grounded in the assume that watching TV is the only reason for museum visits in the city. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the museum visits and TV program. However, there might be a chance that the increased museum attendance might have caused an increase in watching TV programs about the visual arts indeed. People who visit museums experience visual arts, have more interests in visual arts, come home and might have more chances to watch the programs they are familiar. Therefore, the argument is not convincing if the real causes are not defined clearly.
Third, the argument can be strengthened by clearly stating the answers of following questions. Do the people who watch TV programs about the visual arts also go to the museum? Are the demographics of people who watch TV programs about the visual arts and the museum visitors similar? What if they are totally different? What could be other reasons for increased museum visits? If the argument had provided the evidence showing the correlation of cause and effect, it would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly stated all the possible causes for the increase in museum visits and proved the correlation with the rate of watching TV. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
------------------ I'm working on it...
The argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television for visual art programs. Stated in the way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the number of people who visit the city’s museum is due to the increase in the number of TV programs about visual arts. However, the author seems to fail to demonstrate to the correlation between the two factors. For example, the workable hours of city residents could have been reduced since last five years, resulting increase in museum vitis. Clearly, there could be many other reasons that might cause museum visits and if it explicitly stated, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
Second, the argument is grounded in the assume that watching TV is the only reason for museum visits in the city. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the museum visits and TV program. However, there might be a chance that the increased museum attendance might have caused an increase in watching TV programs about the visual arts indeed. People who visit museums experience visual arts, have more interests in visual arts, come home and might have more chances to watch the programs they are familiar. Therefore, the argument is not convincing if the real causes are not defined clearly.
Third, the argument can be strengthened by clearly stating the answers of following questions. Do the people who watch TV programs about the visual arts also go to the museum? Are the demographics of people who watch TV programs about the visual arts and the museum visitors similar? What if they are totally different? What could be other reasons for increased museum visits? If the argument had provided the evidence showing the correlation of cause and effect, it would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly stated all the possible causes for the increase in museum visits and proved the correlation with the rate of watching TV. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
27 Jul 2019, 15:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Heeyeon
"In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city's art museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city's art museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television."
------------------ I'm working on it...
The argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television for visual art programs. Stated in the way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the number of people who visit the city’s museum is due to the increase in the number of TV programs about visual arts. However, the author seems to fail to demonstrate to the correlation between the two factors. For example, the workable hours of city residents could have been reduced since last five years, resulting increase in museum vitis. Clearly, there could be many other reasons that might cause museum visits and if it explicitly stated, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
Second, the argument is grounded in the assume that watching TV is the only reason for museum visits in the city. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the museum visits and TV program. However, there might be a chance that the increased museum attendance might have caused an increase in watching TV programs about the visual arts indeed. People who visit museums experience visual arts, have more interests in visual arts, come home and might have more chances to watch the programs they are familiar. Therefore, the argument is not convincing if the real causes are not defined clearly.
Third, the argument can be strengthened by clearly stating the answers of following questions. Do the people who watch TV programs about the visual arts also go to the museum? Are the demographics of people who watch TV programs about the visual arts and the museum visitors similar? What if they are totally different? What could be other reasons for increased museum visits? If the argument had provided the evidence showing the correlation of cause and effect, it would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly stated all the possible causes for the increase in museum visits and proved the correlation with the rate of watching TV. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
------------------ I'm working on it...
The argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television for visual art programs. Stated in the way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the number of people who visit the city’s museum is due to the increase in the number of TV programs about visual arts. However, the author seems to fail to demonstrate to the correlation between the two factors. For example, the workable hours of city residents could have been reduced since last five years, resulting increase in museum vitis. Clearly, there could be many other reasons that might cause museum visits and if it explicitly stated, the argument remains unsubstantiated.
Second, the argument is grounded in the assume that watching TV is the only reason for museum visits in the city. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the museum visits and TV program. However, there might be a chance that the increased museum attendance might have caused an increase in watching TV programs about the visual arts indeed. People who visit museums experience visual arts, have more interests in visual arts, come home and might have more chances to watch the programs they are familiar. Therefore, the argument is not convincing if the real causes are not defined clearly.
Third, the argument can be strengthened by clearly stating the answers of following questions. Do the people who watch TV programs about the visual arts also go to the museum? Are the demographics of people who watch TV programs about the visual arts and the museum visitors similar? What if they are totally different? What could be other reasons for increased museum visits? If the argument had provided the evidence showing the correlation of cause and effect, it would have been a lot more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly stated all the possible causes for the increase in museum visits and proved the correlation with the rate of watching TV. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Conclusion para is a bit short. Keep going, write a lil more
I guess 4.5-5 Range for this one.
Keep it short, don't go making complex sentences, it is not IELTS. Just keep it simple.
Also I wonder how often I fall upon such AWAs of yours. You're doing good compared to the other two. Second one was best
28 Jul 2019, 09:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Heeyeon - I see you have followed the chineseburned template. To be honest, I would say that the essay is indeed well written. With such an essay, you can comfortably get a score upward of 5 on test day. Therefore, you should not worry about AWA anymore; you could just attempt one essay per day or on alternate days following up to your test day. All the best.
