GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 Aug 2019, 13:20

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Please evaluate my AWA

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Operations
WE: Operations (Advertising and PR)
Please evaluate my AWA  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2019, 06:37
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 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 states that a correlation between the increased number of visitors to the art museum and the number of viewers who watch art shows on television. The argument omits to say how definitive the correlation is and whether it is just a coincidence.
The major flaw of the argument is that it fails to consider the number of viewers who watch arts shows on television and how many watches it on public television. The poll states the percent increase not the actual number of viewers hence it is not cogent whether the number of people who watch the art shows on television are equal to the number of visitors to the art museum. Also, there could be people who watch it on private television as it is not precisely stated in the argument whether the poll was conducted only for public television viewers. The argument could be strengthened if the author could provide enough evidence of how the poll was conducted, how many people were interviewed and if the results stated in the argument were for public televisions only. The second flaw the argument fails to consider is the reason behind the increased visitors in the art museum as they could be due to the increased tourism in that area, new artefacts installed, new activities starting in the museum or could be the decreased ticket price. Without definitive proof that the reason for the increase in visitors is in fact due to the increased viewers in arts shows on television, the argument is flawed, however if the author provides substantial evidence that the reason for the increased visitors is indeed due to the public televisions broadcasting arts shows then the argument could be strengthened.
If the above-stated pieces of evidence are provided the conclusion of the argument could be appropriate however in its current form the argument is flawed.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 402
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Please evaluate my AWA  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2019, 12:47
1
rimu wrote:
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 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 states that a correlation between the increased number of visitors to the art museum and the number of viewers who watch art shows on television. The argument omits to say how definitive the correlation is and whether it is just a coincidence.
The major flaw of the argument is that it fails to consider the number of viewers who watch arts shows on television and how many watches it on public television. The poll states the percent increase not the actual number of viewers hence it is not cogent whether the number of people who watch the art shows on television are equal to the number of visitors to the art museum. Also, there could be people who watch it on private television as it is not precisely stated in the argument whether the poll was conducted only for public television viewers. The argument could be strengthened if the author could provide enough evidence of how the poll was conducted, how many people were interviewed and if the results stated in the argument were for public televisions only. The second flaw the argument fails to consider is the reason behind the increased visitors in the art museum as they could be due to the increased tourism in that area, new artefacts installed, new activities starting in the museum or could be the decreased ticket price. Without definitive proof that the reason for the increase in visitors is in fact due to the increased viewers in arts shows on television, the argument is flawed, however if the author provides substantial evidence that the reason for the increased visitors is indeed due to the public televisions broadcasting arts shows then the argument could be strengthened.
If the above-stated pieces of evidence are provided the conclusion of the argument could be appropriate however in its current form the argument is flawed.


Hell no
I cannot let you do this to yourself
This kind of a template will get you a 3

Look for an AWA, you must follow template by chineseburned

Para 1 Paraphrasing
Para 2 Flaw 1
Para 3 Flaw 2
Para 4 Flaw 3
Para 5 Summarise with suggestions

Try this style and tag me
I'll suggest if that needs improvement. Just following a template can get you a 5.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Posts: 3
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Operations
WE: Operations (Advertising and PR)
Please evaluate my AWA  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Aug 2019, 03:16
Businessconquerer wrote:
rimu wrote:
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 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 states that a correlation between the increased number of visitors to the art museum and the number of viewers who watch art shows on television. The argument omits to say how definitive the correlation is and whether it is just a coincidence.
The major flaw of the argument is that it fails to consider the number of viewers who watch arts shows on television and how many watches it on public television. The poll states the percent increase not the actual number of viewers hence it is not cogent whether the number of people who watch the art shows on television are equal to the number of visitors to the art museum. Also, there could be people who watch it on private television as it is not precisely stated in the argument whether the poll was conducted only for public television viewers. The argument could be strengthened if the author could provide enough evidence of how the poll was conducted, how many people were interviewed and if the results stated in the argument were for public televisions only. The second flaw the argument fails to consider is the reason behind the increased visitors in the art museum as they could be due to the increased tourism in that area, new artefacts installed, new activities starting in the museum or could be the decreased ticket price. Without definitive proof that the reason for the increase in visitors is in fact due to the increased viewers in arts shows on television, the argument is flawed, however if the author provides substantial evidence that the reason for the increased visitors is indeed due to the public televisions broadcasting arts shows then the argument could be strengthened.
If the above-stated pieces of evidence are provided the conclusion of the argument could be appropriate however in its current form the argument is flawed.


Hell no
I cannot let you do this to yourself
This kind of a template will get you a 3

Look for an AWA, you must follow template by chineseburned

Para 1 Paraphrasing
Para 2 Flaw 1
Para 3 Flaw 2
Para 4 Flaw 3
Para 5 Summarise with suggestions

Try this style and tag me
I'll suggest if that needs improvement. Just following a template can get you a 5.



Hi,
Thanks for the template.
GMAT Club Bot
Please evaluate my AWA   [#permalink] 11 Aug 2019, 03:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Please evaluate my AWA

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne