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.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
18 Oct 2016, 11:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Qs:
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on the arts.
“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".
Discuss how logically persuasive you find the above argument. In presenting your point of view, analyze the sort of reasoning used and supporting evidence. In addition, state what further evidence, if any, would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.
My Response:
The above argument is lacking vital information that is required for the proper evaluation of the situation presented.
Firstly, the argument seems to be based on the assumption that the rise in interest for the arts amone the people of the city is due to the increase in advertisements that promote arts and that it is this rise in ineterest that has led to a rise in the number of people visiting art museums in the city. Although, it may be true that a part of the rise in interest towards arts can be attributed to increase in promotional advertisements and programs on visual arts, the whole credit for the same cannot be attributed to the television programs.
There might be other sources such as greater number and variety of arts courses that are taught in schools and colleges that have increased the interest in arts among the people and which consequently led to more musueum visits. Hence, the argument must provide data on the number and variety of such courses that are taught. Additionally, information regarding the increase in revenue that can be attributed to television programs must also be presented, so that it can be used to compare with the data on courses to evaluate the real causes behind the increase in interest towards arts.
The argument also fails to consider that the increase in percentage of museum visits could be due to an increase in the citys population and nit due to an increase in viewership of television programs on arts.
Hence, the population data is must also be considered in the evaluation of the above situation. If the citys population is predicted to increase at a steady rate then it is likely that a decrease in number of television programs will have little effect on numbers visiting museums.
Lastly, the argument incorrectly claims that there is a direct correlation between corporate funding that supports public television and the attendance at musuems. Even though, one cannot deny that a decrease in funding might decrease in the resources that support television programs on arts, one must find out the reasons for such cuts. It might be that currently, despite huge funds being allocated towards arts programs they have failed to generate enough interest and hence enough revenue from musuems due to which the decision to cut funding has been made. Hence, the state government must start incentivising schools and colleges to include arts courses in thier curriculum to spur interest to maintain attendance. This can, however, only be done in light of information regading the extent of the cuts mentioned above and the available resources and funds that the city has towards arts.
Additionally, the argument also fails to consider that public television is not the only way to increase interest in arts and musueum attendance. May be allocating funds to increase tourism in the city might have a more significant impact on the attendance of musuems by increasing the number of visits by people from out state.
To summarize, the above argument can be strengthened by providing data on all of the above mentioned factors. This information can then be compared and a correlation between the various factors can be established. Ultimately, the factors that will display a high positive correlation can be those towards which the city's funds can be reallocated to ensure thier just and judicious utilisation.
I really appreciate your time and effort!!!
Thanks!!!:))))
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on the arts.
“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".
Discuss how logically persuasive you find the above argument. In presenting your point of view, analyze the sort of reasoning used and supporting evidence. In addition, state what further evidence, if any, would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.
My Response:
The above argument is lacking vital information that is required for the proper evaluation of the situation presented.
Firstly, the argument seems to be based on the assumption that the rise in interest for the arts amone the people of the city is due to the increase in advertisements that promote arts and that it is this rise in ineterest that has led to a rise in the number of people visiting art museums in the city. Although, it may be true that a part of the rise in interest towards arts can be attributed to increase in promotional advertisements and programs on visual arts, the whole credit for the same cannot be attributed to the television programs.
There might be other sources such as greater number and variety of arts courses that are taught in schools and colleges that have increased the interest in arts among the people and which consequently led to more musueum visits. Hence, the argument must provide data on the number and variety of such courses that are taught. Additionally, information regarding the increase in revenue that can be attributed to television programs must also be presented, so that it can be used to compare with the data on courses to evaluate the real causes behind the increase in interest towards arts.
The argument also fails to consider that the increase in percentage of museum visits could be due to an increase in the citys population and nit due to an increase in viewership of television programs on arts.
Hence, the population data is must also be considered in the evaluation of the above situation. If the citys population is predicted to increase at a steady rate then it is likely that a decrease in number of television programs will have little effect on numbers visiting museums.
Lastly, the argument incorrectly claims that there is a direct correlation between corporate funding that supports public television and the attendance at musuems. Even though, one cannot deny that a decrease in funding might decrease in the resources that support television programs on arts, one must find out the reasons for such cuts. It might be that currently, despite huge funds being allocated towards arts programs they have failed to generate enough interest and hence enough revenue from musuems due to which the decision to cut funding has been made. Hence, the state government must start incentivising schools and colleges to include arts courses in thier curriculum to spur interest to maintain attendance. This can, however, only be done in light of information regading the extent of the cuts mentioned above and the available resources and funds that the city has towards arts.
Additionally, the argument also fails to consider that public television is not the only way to increase interest in arts and musueum attendance. May be allocating funds to increase tourism in the city might have a more significant impact on the attendance of musuems by increasing the number of visits by people from out state.
To summarize, the above argument can be strengthened by providing data on all of the above mentioned factors. This information can then be compared and a correlation between the various factors can be established. Ultimately, the factors that will display a high positive correlation can be those towards which the city's funds can be reallocated to ensure thier just and judicious utilisation.
I really appreciate your time and effort!!!
Thanks!!!:))))
23 Nov 2016, 10:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
nice post buddy
I am not the authority to rate your essay,but I think it will get a score >=4.
I am writing my own response for the same.Please rate:)
My Response :
The argument claims that there was an increase both in television viewership of art programs and the number of people visiting the city's art museums in a span of five years,and then makes an assumption that the two incidents are somehow connected.Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors on the bases of which it could be evaluated.The conclusion of the argument relies on arguments for which there is no clear evidence.Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly the argument does not account for factors like the population rise in the past five years,the number of tv sets available,the change in condition of the museums,and the number of tourists or outsiders visiting the museums from other cities.Any data provided upon these aspects of the argument could have made some sense out of the raw facts stated.For instance the increase in both the data could be nothing if the population of the area rose drastically in the past five years,or the economic condition of people improves to account for the affordability of television and museum tickets,and so on and so forth.Secondly the author connects the two pieces of data assuming that the former caused the latter,but this causality has no firm bases and can actually be the opposite of what is stated.It may be the case that the increase in number of visitors to the museums attracted the attention of the media and accounted for the apparent increase in viewership,but when the number of tourists visiting the museums reached a threshold maximum,it was necessary to stop the programs attracting potential visitors through television programming.
To conclude we can say that the argument manipulates facts to form its thesis without any bases for the causality and misses important pieces of data necessary for its evaluation.It reveals examples of leap of faith,poor reasoning and ill defined terminology.If the argument would have accounted for any of the data pointed above,it would have been better reasoned.As of now the argument remains unsubstantial and open to debate.
Thanks for the post btw
I am not the authority to rate your essay,but I think it will get a score >=4.
I am writing my own response for the same.Please rate:)
My Response :
The argument claims that there was an increase both in television viewership of art programs and the number of people visiting the city's art museums in a span of five years,and then makes an assumption that the two incidents are somehow connected.Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors on the bases of which it could be evaluated.The conclusion of the argument relies on arguments for which there is no clear evidence.Hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.
Firstly the argument does not account for factors like the population rise in the past five years,the number of tv sets available,the change in condition of the museums,and the number of tourists or outsiders visiting the museums from other cities.Any data provided upon these aspects of the argument could have made some sense out of the raw facts stated.For instance the increase in both the data could be nothing if the population of the area rose drastically in the past five years,or the economic condition of people improves to account for the affordability of television and museum tickets,and so on and so forth.Secondly the author connects the two pieces of data assuming that the former caused the latter,but this causality has no firm bases and can actually be the opposite of what is stated.It may be the case that the increase in number of visitors to the museums attracted the attention of the media and accounted for the apparent increase in viewership,but when the number of tourists visiting the museums reached a threshold maximum,it was necessary to stop the programs attracting potential visitors through television programming.
To conclude we can say that the argument manipulates facts to form its thesis without any bases for the causality and misses important pieces of data necessary for its evaluation.It reveals examples of leap of faith,poor reasoning and ill defined terminology.If the argument would have accounted for any of the data pointed above,it would have been better reasoned.As of now the argument remains unsubstantial and open to debate.
Thanks for the post btw
Moderator:
