|
|
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.
23 Jun 2016, 10:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi this is my first post on the gmatclub forum and I wrote this AWA based upon the given argument. I would really appreciate if some one can just review the essay once and give me a grade or points on which I can improve.
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts:
“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ANSWER/ESSAY:
The following excerpt which appeared in a memorandum of the large city’s council on arts states that in the recent polls conducted at the city, there has been a 15 percent increase of residents watching television programs about visual arts. The argument also states that the number of people visiting the museums of the city have also increased. Moreover, the argument assumes that the corporate funding that supports public televisions, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is recently being threatened with severe cuts and this will cause a decrease in the attendance at the city’s art museums. However, this argument is flawed due to the unwarranted assumptions and logical fallacies it assumes.
The argument is a logically flawed due to many reasons. Firstly, the argument makes an unwarranted assumption about a cause and effect relation between the increase in the number of the city’s residents watching the television programs, related to visual arts and increase in the attendance at the city’s museum. Furthermore, the argument also assumes that the poll conducted five years ago would be similar to poll conducted recently. Lastly, the argument does not explain the how the allocation of city’s funds to public television would help maintain the attendance at the city’s museums.
Firstly, the argument fails to explain the unwarranted assumption about the cause and effect relationship between the increase in the number of the city’s residents watching the television programs related to visual arts and the increase in the attendance at the city’s museum. Moreover, it fails to provide a logical explanation as to how the television programs attempt to attract the city’s residents to watch visual art programs and encourage the residents to visit the city’s museums. The assumption would have been better explained with evidences such as a documented report on how the broadcasting of visual art programs, on public televisions which increased the number of viewers aided in increasing the attendance at the city’s museum.
Secondly, the argument seeks to make another logical fallacy, it compares a recently conducted poll to the poll conducted five years ago, by assuming that the polls are similar in nature. However, it is not necessary the two polls are similar. For example, perhaps the number of residents participating in the recent poll was much fewer than the number of residents who had participated in the poll conducted five years ago. Moreover, it may be possible that last poll conducted had not been a city wide poll. The argument would not have been flawed, had it been supported with the exact details on the basis of which the two polls have been compared.
Lastly, the argument makes another unnecessary assumption that the reallocation of the corporate funds towards public television, which broadcast several visual art programs will help maintain the attendance at the city’s museums. The assumption is flawed mainly because the argument does not seek to explain why or rather how can the reallocation of corporate funds towards public television, broadcasting visual art programs, help in maintaining the museum’s attendance. Moreover, the argument becomes even more inconsistent since it cannot explain the cause and effect relationship between the broadcasting of visual art programs and the increasing attendance at the city’s art museums, with legitimate evidences. This assumption would be reasonable had it been supported with a detail study and proper examples.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the argument consists of logical fallacies that casts a doubt on the validity of the conclusion. However, the idea of reallocating the city’s funds towards public television where most of the visual arts programs are broadcasted, is not a bad one; but it must be further supported with a detailed analysis.
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts:
“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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ANSWER/ESSAY:
The following excerpt which appeared in a memorandum of the large city’s council on arts states that in the recent polls conducted at the city, there has been a 15 percent increase of residents watching television programs about visual arts. The argument also states that the number of people visiting the museums of the city have also increased. Moreover, the argument assumes that the corporate funding that supports public televisions, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is recently being threatened with severe cuts and this will cause a decrease in the attendance at the city’s art museums. However, this argument is flawed due to the unwarranted assumptions and logical fallacies it assumes.
The argument is a logically flawed due to many reasons. Firstly, the argument makes an unwarranted assumption about a cause and effect relation between the increase in the number of the city’s residents watching the television programs, related to visual arts and increase in the attendance at the city’s museum. Furthermore, the argument also assumes that the poll conducted five years ago would be similar to poll conducted recently. Lastly, the argument does not explain the how the allocation of city’s funds to public television would help maintain the attendance at the city’s museums.
Firstly, the argument fails to explain the unwarranted assumption about the cause and effect relationship between the increase in the number of the city’s residents watching the television programs related to visual arts and the increase in the attendance at the city’s museum. Moreover, it fails to provide a logical explanation as to how the television programs attempt to attract the city’s residents to watch visual art programs and encourage the residents to visit the city’s museums. The assumption would have been better explained with evidences such as a documented report on how the broadcasting of visual art programs, on public televisions which increased the number of viewers aided in increasing the attendance at the city’s museum.
Secondly, the argument seeks to make another logical fallacy, it compares a recently conducted poll to the poll conducted five years ago, by assuming that the polls are similar in nature. However, it is not necessary the two polls are similar. For example, perhaps the number of residents participating in the recent poll was much fewer than the number of residents who had participated in the poll conducted five years ago. Moreover, it may be possible that last poll conducted had not been a city wide poll. The argument would not have been flawed, had it been supported with the exact details on the basis of which the two polls have been compared.
Lastly, the argument makes another unnecessary assumption that the reallocation of the corporate funds towards public television, which broadcast several visual art programs will help maintain the attendance at the city’s museums. The assumption is flawed mainly because the argument does not seek to explain why or rather how can the reallocation of corporate funds towards public television, broadcasting visual art programs, help in maintaining the museum’s attendance. Moreover, the argument becomes even more inconsistent since it cannot explain the cause and effect relationship between the broadcasting of visual art programs and the increasing attendance at the city’s art museums, with legitimate evidences. This assumption would be reasonable had it been supported with a detail study and proper examples.
In conclusion, I would like to state that the argument consists of logical fallacies that casts a doubt on the validity of the conclusion. However, the idea of reallocating the city’s funds towards public television where most of the visual arts programs are broadcasted, is not a bad one; but it must be further supported with a detailed analysis.
Moderators:
188 posts
