“In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that t

Question

“In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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 arts museums has increased by similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television.”

The argument given states that funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television because with the cut in corporate funding that supports public television where most of the visual arts programs are presented will impact indirectly on the number of people watching television program on visual arts and number of people visiting museums. The conclusion is unconvincing because it is based on several unsubstantiated assumptions of comparison of public television viewers and visitors to the city’s art museum. The council’s argument is seriously flawed as discussed below.

First the argument fails to show any correlation between people viewing television program on visual art and people visiting art museums. This is not evident that people who watch television programs on the visual arts also visit the art museums. It could be possible that increase in the attendance of the city’s museum was due to increase in tourist population frequenting the museum or because there was an increase in children between the age groups of 8 -12 years visiting the museum as a result of a number awareness programs initiated by the museum. So, it could be possible that though the number of programs on visual arts decreases, the number of people visiting museum will remain the same or increases.

Secondly the author assumes that the same group of people participated in the two polls. However there is no substantial information to state that the population of people who took part in the poll are the same. There could have been a surge of families who may have moved to the city within these five years who had nothing to do with the first poll.

Moreover author needs to state that whether decrease in corporate funding
For public television will cause a reduction of programs being aired on the television pertaining to visual arts. If corporate funding is normally geared towards programs on economic affairs & news, then it would be highly unlikely that the number of programs on visual arts would decrease. So an impact analysis needs to be done by the council before reaching any conclusion on the effect of the corporate funding cuts on the types of television programs being aired.

To conclude the main point about the relationship or the lack between TV viewer ship and museum visitors should appropriately taken up. Additionally the argument could be strengthened by showing clearer statistics regarding viewer ship and attendance, in terms of percentage of total population; Better understanding of the factors influencing the city’s interest in arts is needed. Without using such information the argument makes a hasty suggestion regarding city funds.

kuttingchai · Answer

I am no expert to judge your essay, but I would like to share what i have written----

In this argument the author concludes that some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. The conclusion is based on the premises that there is an increase in the number of residents visiting city's art museums over 5 years due to 15% increase in residents who watch visual arts television program in comparison to the residents who watched visual arts television program five years ago and there is a reduction in coorporate funding that supports visual arts television program. This arguments is not convincing due to following reasons.

To start with, the author has assumed that the increase in the number of residents to Virtual arts museum is due to 15% more residents now watch the virtual arts television program. The author has not provided any details to show the link between virtual arts television watchers and peoples visiting the virtual arts museum. Just as likely, the people visiting the arts museum might not be one who watch virtual arts television program. Might be that, the Director at museum has added new artifacts in the museum's collection that interest particular age group, causing the increase in the number of people visiting museum.

In addition, the author states that the reduction in corporate funding that supports visual arts television program will negatively impact the attendance at city's art museum. The author has not provided any evidence to support this claim. It can be that the city's art museum's advertisements will still be shown on the television. To be fair, however, we must recognize that the author’s assumption is a special case of a more general one that television viewing affects people’s attitudes and behavior. Common sense and observation tell me that this is indeed the case. After all, advertisers spend billions of dollars on television ad time because they trust this assumption as well.

To conclude there are lack of evidences to support the conclusion that the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. To strengthen the argument author provide link between virtual arts television watchers and peoples visiting the virtual arts museum. Also, author should provide statistical evidence on how reduction in corporate funding that supports visual arts television program will negatively impact the attendance at city's art museum.

SergeyOrshanskiy · Answer

Fantastic question!

"First the argument fails to show any correlation between people viewing television program on visual art and people visiting art museums." --- to be fair, this is not quite true. The argument shows one very specific numerical correlation. However, I see what you mean. Indeed, as both sarb and kuttingchai correctly pointed out, we don't know if the increase in TV viewership and the increase in museum attendance are related - although the fact that both increased by 15% is something to think about. satb, another small correction: "Secondly the author assumes that the same group of people participated in the two polls." --- no, this was not an assumption.

However, let's assume that two are related. Let's assume that those are the same people who are going to the museums and watching visual arts on TV. In my personal opinion, it would be almost insane to assume that they are going to the museums because of watching TV. In my personal opinion, it is much more likely to be the other way round: people first start going to the museums and then later come to watch visual art on TV. Perhaps, those are just educated people interested in the culture. If visual arts program are removed from TV, it is likely to increase museum attendance rather than decrease - or, perhaps, people would just watch visual arts programs on the web.

I also like the point about corporate funding. sarb mentioned that this reduced funding may or may not decrease the number of programs on visual arts, whereas kuttingchai made a different point, noticing that this reduced funding may or may not decrease the attendance at the museums because commercials may still be shown. However, there is more to be said. First of all, we are not even sure that the funding will be reduced, it is only being threatened. Then, even if it will be reduced, and even if it will reduce the audience at the museums, it is not at all clear that some funds should be reallocated to public television. Why not directly to the museums or to the development of visual art websites in the Internet?

In fact, I do not even see why the funds should be reallocated at all. Decreased attendance at the museums is something we can live with. If indeed those were the people who came because of TV commercials and do not have much appreciation for the museums otherwise, fine. Let's not force them into attending museums. Perhaps, this is not their cup of tea. Of course, it may be argued that museums would lose some profits without these TV programs. Even if this is the case, investing city's funds supporting arts into TV programs with the purpose of making profit from the city's museums is not necessarily a wise solution. If the objective is to generate profit, then there should be wiser ways to invest.

kuttingchai, "Also, author should provide statistical evidence on how reduction in corporate funding that supports visual arts television program will negatively impact the attendance at city's art museum." --- a small correction. There cannot be statistical evidence on something that has not yet happened ("...will negatively affect..."). Statistical evidence is only available for past events, not for the future. Statistical evidence can only help us to predict the effect of the reduction on the museum's attendance.

I think kuttingchai's response is a little bit stronger. This response makes it more clear that the issue is the connection between the programs shown on TV and the attendance at the museums. sarb's response is similar, but a little less clear, including some typos and some unfinished sentences. The last sentence could be more polished: "Without using such information the argument makes a hasty suggestion regarding city funds." The expression "using such information" is wordy and unclear. Also, "hasty" suggestion is a judgment, possibly unjustified.

Both responses demonstrate critical thinking and can be improved by incorporating stronger critical thinking. For example, instead of just mentioning that correlation between TV program viewership and museum attendance does not imply causation, it is also possible to consider causation in the opposite direction: perhaps, people watch visual arts on TV after or because they attend museums. It is also always good to keep the big picture in mind: just because the attendance at the museums decreased does not mean that there is necessarily a problem to fix. Even if we are to fix the problem (of the decreasing attendance at the museums), we do not have to fix it in the same way as before. New ways of attracting people to museums may be appropriate including, but not limited to, creating quality content for the Internet.

Brand · Answer

Hi, 
Can anyone please make me clear what the argument is actually talking about.
Does it say due to public television's broadcasting visual arts the city's art museums attendance is decreasing ?

gmatprephwc · Answer

Please rate mine:

The argument that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television has many flaws. In drawing the conclusion, the author not only fails to provide a direct relationship between people watching visual art and people visiting the art museum, but also fails to define the severity of the cuts in Corporate Funds. Furthermore, the author doesn’t talk about other areas in which city’s fund supporting visual art is allocated.

First, the author bases the conclusion on relationship between people watching visual art on television and people visiting the art museum, but the author fails to explain this relationship. If, for example, people watching visual art on television are different from the people visiting museum, then there is no relationship between the two. Conversely, if only those people who don’t watch the visual art on television visit the museum, then there can be an inverse relationship rater than the direct relationship.

Since, the author fails to provide the direct relationship, it is impossible to determine whether the above conclusion is appropriate.
Second, the argument does not talk about other areas in which city’s funds are allocated. If, for example, City’s funds, supporting city’s art, is spend on marketing, maintenance, preservation, or education about visual art that has direct result in people turnout at the museum then reallocating this fund could have opposite effect. Hence, it is impossible to state whether reallocation would have an intended effect.

Finally, the author assumes that most of the funding, focus on visual art programs comes from corporate, whereas there can be many other organizations, such as nonprofit organizations or schools, spending even more than corporate. Therefore the impact of cuts may not be large enough.

The argument could be strengthened, if it provided more evidence to prove direct relationship between television viewers and museum visitors. The argument could also be strengthened, if it provided more details regarding funding of television programs focusing on visual art. As the argument leaves several key issues, it is not persuasive and unconvincing.

devanshiy · Answer

Review:

The argument states that there has been similar increase in the attendance at city's museum and the auidience of visual arts telivison program over the last five years.Therefore if funding for the visual arts programme was to be cut there would be a drop in the attendance of city's museum. This argument lacks various key factors and it simply relies on the general assumption that telivision viewership is directly propotional to the attendace at city's museum.

First,it is possible that over the last five years rise in the number of people interested in the visual arts had nothing to do with the telivison programme or the museum. The interest of people might have been ignighted by student being taught about the visual arts and that could have led to the curious children and their parents started watching the shows and going to the museums.

Second,even if telivision was the factor that led to people getting to know more about visual arts and then them visiting the museum.There is no reason that if these programmes were no longer running people would no longer be interested in going to the museum.For example, if a family developed an interest in visual arts by watching a certain programme and then it led to them going to the museum , they won't stop going to the museum if the programme is no longer on telivision because they have already developed an interest.

Third, there are a number of ways from which the museum can attract people. They can reduse the prices of the tickets,they can have free exhibits. There are no factors given to determine the cause of high or low attendance at the museum .

Hence, the argument that is given is a weak one. If above factors are included then the argument would have been more thorough and persuasive.

MonicaJesvina · Answer

It was a good one. I completely have review it.

jkrishh7 · Answer

In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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 arts museums has increased by similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television.”
*****************Feedback Please***************
The argument presented vide memorandum of city’s council on arts is extremely vague and flawed by the facts that it does not connect with the final decision logically.

Firstly, it talks about pole that got only increased by 15 % in comparison to poll conducted five years back. There is no mention about details of poles such as was it only for visual arts or all types of arts. Further, how many participated in poll viz-a-viz the population of city, is it a general view among city people or only a fraction of population .What was the target age group (which are most likely to visit or see art) for polls conducted has not been mentioned anywhere. Thus drawing inference based on incomplete information is not logical. Secondly, it is not understood how the TV viewership is directly related to number of people visiting local art gallery. It may provide the vague idea about general interest of population but making prediction solely based on it will generated erroneous results/ predictions. It can also be questioned that what is the concrete reasoning behind expected reduction in visitors, is it because of location of gallery, ticket cost or type of art (may be not of interest to general population). What other things that can be done to further improve its image among population like reducing ticket fare, introducing local arts for display etc. Third and the major issue is reduction in corporate funding, the fact that people will prefer (we are not sure general or fraction of population) very less is not the only performance indicator for public television. Additionally, what are the other sources of income for public television for eg advertisement, tv programmes etc and how they will be affected by mere general opinion of public about visual arts. Lastly, it is ambiguous that how allocation of fund will aid in increasing survivability of public TV? There is no information provide about the exact requirement of funds and probable plan for expenditure these funds.

It is clearly evident from above mentioned facts that, the council has failed to fathom actual root of problem and also the logical relationship between problem and causes is itself ambiguous. If above mentioned facts are not considered then it may result in unfavorable or unexpected outcome.

ricardosotos · Answer

Can Anyone grade my essay please?
 
 “In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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.”

The argument claims that, because public televisión is under threats of severe funding cuts, this will affect attendance at the city’s art museums and therefore some fund reallocation is needed in order to reverse this trend. Stated in this way, the argument fails at mentioning several key factors that might result essential in assessing the strenght of its arguments. In addition, it manipulates the facts, offering a distorted view of the reality. The conclusión of the argument, hence, is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that reallocating some of the funds supporting the arts to public televisión will have a greater possitive impact, rather than leaving the support in the current state. This is a stretch and there is no evidence that this relation could actually hold. For instance, there are several examples of funding reallocation that have been proved inefficient. One can think the city as a company whose main attractive is the infrastructure and services surrounding the museums, being these the reason why most of the visitors appear. In this case, shortening the funding for the museums and redirecting it to public televisión might not be efficient for museum attendance purposes. Therefore, this assumption needs to be proved, otherwise, the argument is flawed and results unconvincing.

Second, the argument claims that because of the expected cuts to the public televisión, some decrease in attendance to museums can be expected. This is a flaw, since the argument fails at showing any piece of correlation between funding to public televisión and attendance to museums. Mutiple posibilities are offerred in this regard. Therefore, without any further explanation of this claim, it cannot be taken as a reason suporting the conclusión.

Finaly, the argument mentions some statistics showing some sort of similarities between the changes in viewership of televisión programs about visual arts and attendance to museums. One can infer some kind of correlation between both variables, however, that correlation does not imply causation. For instance, there might be multiple exogenous variables causing this similarity. The argument in this sense could be strenghtened if it answered to questions including, but not limited to, weather if there has been an event during the 5 year difference that might have caused both increases, if the trends are characteristic of the residents of the city or more of a worldwide trend or if the trends have somehow been affected by a different level if funding across these years. Without an answer to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusión, because of the aforementioned reasons, the argument is flawed and can be judged unconvincing. It would be strenghtened if it further explained some relations assumed or if it provided answer to the questions highlighted. All in all, one cannot assess the merits of a situation like this one without having in full information about all the relevant facts. Thus, I would personaly need more details and research in order to accept the conclusión stated.

Zied123 · Answer

Can you please give me feedback on my essay 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.

The author concludes that the funds that support the city's museum should be used to support public television. The conclusion relies on the fact that the cuts on corporate funding for public television will lead to a decrease in the city's art museum visitors. However, the argument relies on assumptions for which the author does not supply clear evidence.

First, the author assumes a positive relationship between the number of visitors at the city's art museums and the audience rate of the visual art programs on television. However, it may not be the case. In fact, the reduction in art programs may encourage people to visit more often museums since it is almost the only available way to enjoy visual arts. As a result, the number of people visiting the city's museum won't decrease even after severe cuts in the corporate fundings that support public TV.

Second, the author infers that the only way to finance public television is either by using corporate funding or by using the city's funds. However, in this case, public funding may be a reliable alternative. In fact, since a lot of people enjoy visual art programs, they may donate money in order to offset the cuts in fundings.

To strengthen the argument the author must provide several pieces of evidence to support his assumptions. First of all, the author should state whether there are other sources of funding to support public television like public funding for example, or not. The author could also make a stronger case by showing that people who watch art visuals on TV would also enjoy visiting museums. In its current state, the argument relies too heavily on unsupported assumptions to be convincing.

SethDaps · Answer

Please rate my easy

The argument that a proposed cut in funding for public television where most of visual art programs appear is likely to reduce visits to art museums is flawed. The argument fails to provide a direct link between the number of people who visited the city museums due to the showing of art programs on public television.

First, the argument is comparing the result of two different polls to reach the conclusion that attendance at city art museums will decrease if funding for public television is cut. The argument has failed to provide evidence to show to that the number of residents who visit the city museums were as a result of the showing and promotion of art programs on TV.

Second, the argument also fails to indicate the drivers that have caused an increase in museum visits over the past five years. Had the argument indicate that the amount of funding to public tv to promote art programs has drawn a lot of people to visit the museums, would have provided a compelling evidence to support the expected reduction in museum visits.

Third, the fact that there is a fifteen percent increase in the number of people who watch art program on television does not mean they visit the city art museum. if nonresidents constitute of a larger number of attendances at the city museums over the past five year then the conclusion based on the results of a poll conducted on residents is false. It is highly possible that the number of museum visits will include both residents and tourist

Because the argument fails to provide a evidence to links the result of the polls to museum visits, it is not compelling. If the argument clearly indicates the major drivers behind the number of visits to the museum than rely only the results of survey, the argument would have been more convincing.

Ipsita025 · Answer

AWA Evaluation Request  bb   Sajjad1994

Please could you evaluate the below essay:

The argument concludes that to prevent the attendance at city’s art museums to decrease owing to “severe cuts” in the corporate funding for public television, some of the city’s funds directed to arts should be reallocated to public television. The author bases this recommendation by drawing a correlation between the uptick in the percentage of residents who said they watched television programs related to visual arts versus a poll conducted five years ago, to the uptick in the number of people visiting the city’s art museums over the period. However, the author’s suggestion assumes correlation to mean causation and doesn’t draw out the relevant points to support the same.

Firstly, we do not know if the increase in the attendance at city’s art museums has been stemming from an increase in tourist activities or from its own residents. The latter group being the one that the poll has addressed. The argument fails to address if the city over the last five years has increased its funding to the tourism industry and has been now drawing in more tourists, that have driven the art museums footfall.

Secondly, the argument doesn’t elaborate on if the television viewing in general has increased or is the increase just confined to the programs on visual arts. Furthermore, even though the argument looks to establish causation, it doesn’t provide any data on if the residents who view these programs on visual arts, actually form a part of the public that visits the art museums. It also doesn’t establish if a part of the residents viewing the art programs, have established an interest that leads them to the art museums or if it is the visit to the museums that has ignited the interest for art shows.

Thirdly, the suggestion to divert some of the city’s fund supporting arts to public television, fails to consider two vital aspects: if the funding that is diverted can actually be ensured to be used for visual arts programs; and more importantly we don’t have clarity on if the other projects this funding will be diverted from are not the actual drivers of the increased footfall.

In conclusion, this argument is flawed and unconvincing because of the above mentioned reasons. The author has looked to draw a conclusion based on no supporting facts and details. The argument could potentially have been strengthened if associated information was provided including: the data on the museum traffic; data on museum visiting activities of the poll takers; more clarity on how the diverted funding would be used; and information on the art programs this fund was intended to be diverted from.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5   
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

aishu0091 · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994 , Please could you evaluate the below essay? Thank you.

___

Citing the similar increase in the percentages of people watching television programs about visual arts and the increased percentage of the number of people visiting the city’s museum, the author of the argument claims that with the threat of severe cuts to the visual arts programs, the attendance at the city’s art museums will also start to decline. The conclusion relies on the statistical correlation between the viewership of visual arts programs and visits to the city museums, but fails to mention several factors on the basis of which the argument can be evaluated. The author heavily relies on the correlation but fails to consider other factors, making the argument rather weak and unconvincing.

While the argument largely relies on the correlation between viewership of visual arts programs and the visits to the city’s museum, the author of the argument does not question whether the correlation is valid. The mere fact that two phenomena are occurring at the same time does not mean that increased viewership caused the rise in museum attendance. The author fails to provide compelling evidence without which the conclusion is unwarranted.

The author also fails to consider other factors that could have caused the rise in the museum attendance, such as increased advertising of the museum drawing in more attention, the installation of a famous piece, change in the type of artwork presented in the museum, decrease in the price of tickets, making in affordable for a larger number of people, change in government policies leading to increased tourism and correspondingly an increase in the attendance at the museum. Unless the author can rule of the other factors, the author commits the fallacy of assuming two unrelated events are in some way correlated because they occur at the same time.

Lastly, the author assumes that the people who took part in the polls are the same people who have visited the museums. Without compelling evidence to support that the individuals in the two groups are the same, there is a likelihood that the author is making unfounded claims.

In conclusion, the argument is weak because it depends on the above mentioned assumptions. In order to strengthen the argument, the author must provide the necessary evidence which would help substantiate the claim made. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and is open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 4.5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5  
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

Himan2209 · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994

Please help evaluate my AWA:

The argument claims that attendance at the city's art museums will start to decline because of severe cuts in corporate funding that supports public television. It also suggests that during the past 5 years, there has been a 15% increase in the number of residents watching television programs about visual arts and that impacts number of people visiting our city’s museum in same proportion. Stated in this 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 weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the increase in the number of visitors to the city’ art museum can be attributed to the increased number of people watching visual arts on television. This statement is a stretch as there could be other reasons for the increase in the number of visitors in museum over the past 5 years. For example, there can be the case that new attractions has been introduced in museum over past 5 years that lures more visitors. Clearly, we can’t say increase is because of single reason unless we explore all factors that can increase number of visitors.
The argument could have been much clearer if it is explicitly stated that there are no changes in the museum and its art as well as demographics of the population of the city hasn’t changed much.

Secondly, the argument claims that severe cuts in corporate funding supporting public television will lead to decline in number of visitors to museum. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between number of people watching visual arts and number of people visiting art museum. While corporate funding cuts results in reduction in television viewership, this in turn should force people to visit museums more, so as to have knowledge of art that they were able to get on TV earlier. If the argument had provided evidence that reduction of TV viewership led to decline in museum visitors then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, a few questions such as other factors influencing museum visitor count and evidence that decrease in TV viewership is related to decline in museum visitors shall be answered. Without convincing answers to the questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as other reasons of increased viewership & museum visitors and correlations between viewership and museum visitors. Without this information, the argument remain unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 4.5 - 5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 3.5/5   
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 3/5  
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

Himan2209 · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994 ,

Can you please evaluate my AWA (posted 27 Jul 2022, 21:10)

I think you replied on old essay on post. Just want to cross check scoring on my essay.

Regards,
Himan2209

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

“In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that t

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards