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
07 May 2020, 12:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is my second time writing the essay. Please let me know what you think!
“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 by 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's claim that in order to maintain the city's attendance in its art museum, the city should reallocate its funds to public television, is flawed. Firstly, the claim assumes causation between the study of visual arts TV program viewership and museum attendance. Moreover, the argument fails to mention several key factors to the art museum attendance, on the basis of which the city could evaluate better investment options, other than public television. Thirdly, it is important to consider the popularity of public television, and take into account other studies that will reveal the decreasing viewership of this medium. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the art museum attendance in the city increased because of the rise in city residents watching visual arts on public television, for the past five years. Undeniabley, there is no clear evidence that this was a direct cause and effect situation. According to the information provided by the city's art museum, about 40% of the attendees are not from the city. Clearly, one cannot conclude that the increase of attendees is owed to its own city's residents. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the percentage surge in the number of people visiting the art museum was made up of only the city's residents, who watch these television programs.
Secondly, the argument claims that in order to maintain the art museum's attendance, the city should reallocate its funds to public television. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not explore other factors that may have increased the art museum's attendance. These factors may be the art museum's own marketing strategy. For instance, in the past 5 years, the museum has opened its doors for various events, which has attracted both event planners and guests to return repeatedly. Therefore, it may be in the city's best interest to help fund the marketing and promotions department of the museum, instead, so that they can experience a better return on investment.
Finally, a few thoughts remain regarding the need for public television. In the past five years, over 60% of public television viewers have switched over to paid streaming services. As a result, investing in public television may not increase the art museum's attendance. To add, the argument fails to discuss how public television will achieve the goal of attendance at the museums, and it does not provide further studies regarding whether a majority of residents within the city watch public television.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevent facts, such as how many residents who watched the television visual arts programs attended the museum within the past five years, what other factors are related to the art museum attendance, and the popualrity of public television in the city. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
“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 by 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's claim that in order to maintain the city's attendance in its art museum, the city should reallocate its funds to public television, is flawed. Firstly, the claim assumes causation between the study of visual arts TV program viewership and museum attendance. Moreover, the argument fails to mention several key factors to the art museum attendance, on the basis of which the city could evaluate better investment options, other than public television. Thirdly, it is important to consider the popularity of public television, and take into account other studies that will reveal the decreasing viewership of this medium. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the art museum attendance in the city increased because of the rise in city residents watching visual arts on public television, for the past five years. Undeniabley, there is no clear evidence that this was a direct cause and effect situation. According to the information provided by the city's art museum, about 40% of the attendees are not from the city. Clearly, one cannot conclude that the increase of attendees is owed to its own city's residents. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the percentage surge in the number of people visiting the art museum was made up of only the city's residents, who watch these television programs.
Secondly, the argument claims that in order to maintain the art museum's attendance, the city should reallocate its funds to public television. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not explore other factors that may have increased the art museum's attendance. These factors may be the art museum's own marketing strategy. For instance, in the past 5 years, the museum has opened its doors for various events, which has attracted both event planners and guests to return repeatedly. Therefore, it may be in the city's best interest to help fund the marketing and promotions department of the museum, instead, so that they can experience a better return on investment.
Finally, a few thoughts remain regarding the need for public television. In the past five years, over 60% of public television viewers have switched over to paid streaming services. As a result, investing in public television may not increase the art museum's attendance. To add, the argument fails to discuss how public television will achieve the goal of attendance at the museums, and it does not provide further studies regarding whether a majority of residents within the city watch public television.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons, and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevent facts, such as how many residents who watched the television visual arts programs attended the museum within the past five years, what other factors are related to the art museum attendance, and the popualrity of public television in the city. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
