|
|
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.
27 Mar 2015, 00:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
The statistics presented in the memorandum presents an increase in the number of viewers of television programs on visual arts and a similar increase in the number of visitors to art museums. The argument has related the two and has concluded that the increase in the number of visitors to museums has been possible because of the promotion of art on television and if the funding for televised promotion of arts is reduced, it will cause a decline in the number of museum visitors resultantly. This seemingly well reasoned argument is flawed as it has omitted certain important concerns vis-à-vis the amount of data presented and the use of the data to build the conclusion.
Firstly, the memorandum has not mentioned anything about an increase in population of residents, especially of a particular age group, or in the influx of visitors/tourists. The 15% rise in the viewers of TV programs and visitors of museums may have been just because of the increase in the number of people as such. Secondly, the memorandum has not presented any study that could link the impact of televised serials on the museum visiting behavior of the people. It may be possible that the 15% increase in the number of TV program viewers over that five years ago may have been of those people who just like watching art on TV and the 15% increase in the number of museum visitors may have been of those who like to view art in at the museum, i.e., the two groups may be altogether separate. Also, it may have been possible that schools and colleges might have started new courses on art or might have registered increased enrollment which may have increased the number of students of art thereby causing an increase in both categories of people (the viewers and visitors). In such a case, the impact of televised serials on the museum visiting behavior seems irrelevant.
Thirdly, the memorandum has not communicated any data pertaining to the amount of funding during the last five years on art museums or TV serials showing the same. It may have been possible that over the last five years the budgetary allocation on this subject may have been increased by a significant degree which may have caused an increase in the number of museums and display items or an improvement in the quality and type of display items in the museums. The corporate set-ups or corporations may have made efforts to make the city an art haven, supporting artist of various backgrounds and nationalities thus creating an atmosphere of art and love for the same. All this may have caused TV channels to devote considerable time to the subject and thus have caused a rise in the number of viewers. Now that the corporate funding is being reduced for TV programs, it may not make much of a difference as the desired objective of promoting art may have been achieved. Moreover, even if corporate funding is reduced for TV channels, the government can always invest money if there is such a requirement.
Finally, it has not been mentioned in the memorandum as to what kind of channels are primarily aired on TV and whether the funds going to channels which air programs on art will see a decline. It may be possible that corporate funding for news channels or movie channels, which do not show programs on art, is being reduced.
Therefore while the memorandum presents a structured and seemingly reasonable argument, it suffers from certain inconsistencies and can be improved if more data, the likes of which have been mentioned above, is shown and a thorough and cogent conclusion is drawn thereafter.
Firstly, the memorandum has not mentioned anything about an increase in population of residents, especially of a particular age group, or in the influx of visitors/tourists. The 15% rise in the viewers of TV programs and visitors of museums may have been just because of the increase in the number of people as such. Secondly, the memorandum has not presented any study that could link the impact of televised serials on the museum visiting behavior of the people. It may be possible that the 15% increase in the number of TV program viewers over that five years ago may have been of those people who just like watching art on TV and the 15% increase in the number of museum visitors may have been of those who like to view art in at the museum, i.e., the two groups may be altogether separate. Also, it may have been possible that schools and colleges might have started new courses on art or might have registered increased enrollment which may have increased the number of students of art thereby causing an increase in both categories of people (the viewers and visitors). In such a case, the impact of televised serials on the museum visiting behavior seems irrelevant.
Thirdly, the memorandum has not communicated any data pertaining to the amount of funding during the last five years on art museums or TV serials showing the same. It may have been possible that over the last five years the budgetary allocation on this subject may have been increased by a significant degree which may have caused an increase in the number of museums and display items or an improvement in the quality and type of display items in the museums. The corporate set-ups or corporations may have made efforts to make the city an art haven, supporting artist of various backgrounds and nationalities thus creating an atmosphere of art and love for the same. All this may have caused TV channels to devote considerable time to the subject and thus have caused a rise in the number of viewers. Now that the corporate funding is being reduced for TV programs, it may not make much of a difference as the desired objective of promoting art may have been achieved. Moreover, even if corporate funding is reduced for TV channels, the government can always invest money if there is such a requirement.
Finally, it has not been mentioned in the memorandum as to what kind of channels are primarily aired on TV and whether the funds going to channels which air programs on art will see a decline. It may be possible that corporate funding for news channels or movie channels, which do not show programs on art, is being reduced.
Therefore while the memorandum presents a structured and seemingly reasonable argument, it suffers from certain inconsistencies and can be improved if more data, the likes of which have been mentioned above, is shown and a thorough and cogent conclusion is drawn thereafter.
Moderators:
188 posts
