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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
19 Jun 2016, 23:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, this is my essay after reading Manhattan AWA guide, please give me some feedbacks and how's the reasoning develop in my essay (really scared of AWA)
Thank you!
--------------------
“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 … etc.
---------------------
This argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television as such funds to public television is threatened with severe cut hence it will lead to the decline of city art museums’ attendance. This argument is unlikely to be justified because provided evidence fails to support the author’s claim.
First, one fundamental defect of this argument is that it readily assumes that TV viewership leads is the cause of city’s art museums attendance. Result of the poll just simply indicated that TV viewership about the visual art increased simultaneously with the number of people visiting city’s art museum, it, however, does not justify that TV art programs viewership is the motivation for people to go to museum. Adversely, it could be the fact that increasing number of museums visitors who bolstered the increase of TV art programs viewership, in addition, there may be some other cause at work. For example, more museums were built during those five years, less other TV programs available for people to watch as a result people have to watch visual art on TV since they don’t have other options. Therefore, this argument is unsolid and weak since no detailed information was provided to address the real causation.
Second, the decision to reallocate funds to public TV programs is a fallacious claim to reach the author’s goal. On one hand, there is no connection between visual art TV viewership and museums attendance as mentioned above, on the other hand, it omits side effects of this haste decision which may backfire its purpose. To illustrate, the more funds reallocated to public Television, the less funds to museums are available. Without enough funds to maintain the museums, eventually those museums could be damaged by numerous visitors, moreover, fewer visual art objects could those museum to exhibit to attract visitors, leading the decline of museums’ attraction and in the long run, museum attendance would inevitably fall. This again, a very unsound argument to backup author’s claim. Without more detailed information provided, it probably won’t work in author’s favor.
Third, this argument make unwarranted assumption that the result of a five-year-old poll will still have actual impact on today’s world. Circumstances change all the time, especially with a more advanced technology and emerging new medias. For example, more and more people have access to internet visual reality devices nowadays hence there is no need for people to go to museums to appreciate arts. Not only because it is of more convenience, but also it costs less than buying tickets.
Therefore, this argument is flawed and unconvincing.
In conclusion, the decision of reallocate funds to public TV is not going to work as it fails to justify the causation, takes logic leap, and uses unpersuasive data. To make this argument a stronger claim, one should have to seek the connection between TV viewership and museum attendance, find more feasible methods, avoid potential side effect and give more thorough consideration of the whole picture.
Thank you!
--------------------
“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 … etc.
---------------------
This argument claims that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television as such funds to public television is threatened with severe cut hence it will lead to the decline of city art museums’ attendance. This argument is unlikely to be justified because provided evidence fails to support the author’s claim.
First, one fundamental defect of this argument is that it readily assumes that TV viewership leads is the cause of city’s art museums attendance. Result of the poll just simply indicated that TV viewership about the visual art increased simultaneously with the number of people visiting city’s art museum, it, however, does not justify that TV art programs viewership is the motivation for people to go to museum. Adversely, it could be the fact that increasing number of museums visitors who bolstered the increase of TV art programs viewership, in addition, there may be some other cause at work. For example, more museums were built during those five years, less other TV programs available for people to watch as a result people have to watch visual art on TV since they don’t have other options. Therefore, this argument is unsolid and weak since no detailed information was provided to address the real causation.
Second, the decision to reallocate funds to public TV programs is a fallacious claim to reach the author’s goal. On one hand, there is no connection between visual art TV viewership and museums attendance as mentioned above, on the other hand, it omits side effects of this haste decision which may backfire its purpose. To illustrate, the more funds reallocated to public Television, the less funds to museums are available. Without enough funds to maintain the museums, eventually those museums could be damaged by numerous visitors, moreover, fewer visual art objects could those museum to exhibit to attract visitors, leading the decline of museums’ attraction and in the long run, museum attendance would inevitably fall. This again, a very unsound argument to backup author’s claim. Without more detailed information provided, it probably won’t work in author’s favor.
Third, this argument make unwarranted assumption that the result of a five-year-old poll will still have actual impact on today’s world. Circumstances change all the time, especially with a more advanced technology and emerging new medias. For example, more and more people have access to internet visual reality devices nowadays hence there is no need for people to go to museums to appreciate arts. Not only because it is of more convenience, but also it costs less than buying tickets.
Therefore, this argument is flawed and unconvincing.
In conclusion, the decision of reallocate funds to public TV is not going to work as it fails to justify the causation, takes logic leap, and uses unpersuasive data. To make this argument a stronger claim, one should have to seek the connection between TV viewership and museum attendance, find more feasible methods, avoid potential side effect and give more thorough consideration of the whole picture.
Moderators:
188 posts
