|
|
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.
14 Apr 2018, 10:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts:
“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 argument claims that television programs about the visual arts are directly related to the number of people visiting city’s art museums. The argument fails to mention several key factors through which visual arts programs can be related to the number of people visiting city’s art museum. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence; therefore the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that as the percentage of residents increased in watching visual arts in television program is same as the percentage of the visitor in city’s museum, there must be a relation between them which is severely flawed. There may be a lot of precipitates that increase the number of visitor in city’s museum, such as increasing number of antiques in museum, reliable transport facilities etc. which are not related to the visual arts program. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the factors through which the number of visitor in city’s museum is connected to television programs about visual arts.
Second, the argument claims that if the budget is reallocated to public television it may help to increase the number of visitor in city’s museum which is not correlated. To increase the number of visitors there should consider several factors, such as safety of the visitor, complication in immigration in the airport etc. If the argument had provided evidence that budget is the vital factor for the decreasing of visitor then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, does the visual arts program directly related to the number of visitors? Does reallocating budget is the only factor to increase the number of visitors? Without convincing these considerations, one is left with the impression that the argument is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed with the above- mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could considerably strengthen the argument if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
“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 argument claims that television programs about the visual arts are directly related to the number of people visiting city’s art museums. The argument fails to mention several key factors through which visual arts programs can be related to the number of people visiting city’s art museum. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence; therefore the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that as the percentage of residents increased in watching visual arts in television program is same as the percentage of the visitor in city’s museum, there must be a relation between them which is severely flawed. There may be a lot of precipitates that increase the number of visitor in city’s museum, such as increasing number of antiques in museum, reliable transport facilities etc. which are not related to the visual arts program. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the factors through which the number of visitor in city’s museum is connected to television programs about visual arts.
Second, the argument claims that if the budget is reallocated to public television it may help to increase the number of visitor in city’s museum which is not correlated. To increase the number of visitors there should consider several factors, such as safety of the visitor, complication in immigration in the airport etc. If the argument had provided evidence that budget is the vital factor for the decreasing of visitor then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, does the visual arts program directly related to the number of visitors? Does reallocating budget is the only factor to increase the number of visitors? Without convincing these considerations, one is left with the impression that the argument is more wishful thinking than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed with the above- mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. It could considerably strengthen the argument if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Moderators:
188 posts
