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 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
03 Jan 2014, 03:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
This is my first attempt at AWA and I would really be grateful to the experts here if they could rate the essay,point out the mistakes etc.I have gone through some sample AWAs and tried to stick to the same format.
This topic is from GMAT's topics list.
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 assumes that television programs about visual arts motivate people to visit the city’s museums. An apparent fallacy in the argument’s structure lies in the unverifiable comparison between the number of people who watch visual arts programs on TV and those who visit the museums. Therefore, the conclusion that 15% increase in the number of respondents who said they watched visual arts programs was the reason why the number of people visiting the museums increased by the same percentage is unwarranted. It’s possible that the sets representing those who responded to the poll and those who visit the museum do not overlap. The reason for the increase in visitorship might be due to an influx of tourists in the city or some other temporary phenomenon which will make the argument that corporate funding must be replaced with public funding weak.
The argument doesn’t make the reason behind cuts in corporate funding clear. It might be the case that the increase in the number of visitors at the museum is not sufficient to recover its operating costs and therefore the proposal to invest city funds in this unprofitable venture is a bad idea.
The argument ends with the proposition to reallocate some of the city’s funds from supporting the arts to public television without considering the possibility that activities happening with those very same funds, and not the visual arts programs, might be motivating people to visit the museums and could be the reason for the increase in visitorship. In fact, there could also be an opposite relationship between the two variables playing the central role in this argument: museum funding might be encouraging people to watch visual arts programs.
This is my first attempt at AWA and I would really be grateful to the experts here if they could rate the essay,point out the mistakes etc.I have gone through some sample AWAs and tried to stick to the same format.
This topic is from GMAT's topics list.
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 assumes that television programs about visual arts motivate people to visit the city’s museums. An apparent fallacy in the argument’s structure lies in the unverifiable comparison between the number of people who watch visual arts programs on TV and those who visit the museums. Therefore, the conclusion that 15% increase in the number of respondents who said they watched visual arts programs was the reason why the number of people visiting the museums increased by the same percentage is unwarranted. It’s possible that the sets representing those who responded to the poll and those who visit the museum do not overlap. The reason for the increase in visitorship might be due to an influx of tourists in the city or some other temporary phenomenon which will make the argument that corporate funding must be replaced with public funding weak.
The argument doesn’t make the reason behind cuts in corporate funding clear. It might be the case that the increase in the number of visitors at the museum is not sufficient to recover its operating costs and therefore the proposal to invest city funds in this unprofitable venture is a bad idea.
The argument ends with the proposition to reallocate some of the city’s funds from supporting the arts to public television without considering the possibility that activities happening with those very same funds, and not the visual arts programs, might be motivating people to visit the museums and could be the reason for the increase in visitorship. In fact, there could also be an opposite relationship between the two variables playing the central role in this argument: museum funding might be encouraging people to watch visual arts programs.
06 Jan 2014, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi there,
I presume that you are new here,and hence you posted your essay in the wrong discussion thread.
This thread is meant for 'Share GMAT experience'.
I am moving this topic in relevant section.
Rgds,
TGC!
I presume that you are new here,and hence you posted your essay in the wrong discussion thread.
This thread is meant for 'Share GMAT experience'.
I am moving this topic in relevant section.
Rgds,
TGC!
12 Jun 2023, 13:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
I have tried out the same essay as the one above, could you please rate my essay?
The argument relies on several flawed arguments such as comparing apples with oranges, generalizing statements and bold and far reaching assumptions.
The author is comparing the people who visit art museums with people who watch programms about the visual arts. The target audience can have some simularities but the author does not provide them. Untill he does, the author is simply comparing apples to oranges.
Building on this comparison the author makes the bold assumption that if the public television its budget is cut, it means that the attendance in the museums will drop.
As mentioned before, the two types of audience are not neccesarily related and therefore stating that if one will drop the other will drop is a bold assumption.
Then the author continues goes from bold to far reaching by saying that the funds for the supporting arts should be reallocated to public television. Public television does not only include visual arts nor is the target audience the same. By moving budget away from the supporting arts to public television it will more likely suffer rather than be helped.
The argument that the author is making could do more damage rather than help. If the author could show some more concrete coorelation between the people who watch visual arts and the people who visit the museum, the arument would have more merrit. Additionally, if the author would be precise of how the budget would be relocated and provide an substantial argument of how this would improve the museums the argument would have a concrete base to rest upon.
The argument relies on several flawed arguments such as comparing apples with oranges, generalizing statements and bold and far reaching assumptions.
The author is comparing the people who visit art museums with people who watch programms about the visual arts. The target audience can have some simularities but the author does not provide them. Untill he does, the author is simply comparing apples to oranges.
Building on this comparison the author makes the bold assumption that if the public television its budget is cut, it means that the attendance in the museums will drop.
As mentioned before, the two types of audience are not neccesarily related and therefore stating that if one will drop the other will drop is a bold assumption.
Then the author continues goes from bold to far reaching by saying that the funds for the supporting arts should be reallocated to public television. Public television does not only include visual arts nor is the target audience the same. By moving budget away from the supporting arts to public television it will more likely suffer rather than be helped.
The argument that the author is making could do more damage rather than help. If the author could show some more concrete coorelation between the people who watch visual arts and the people who visit the museum, the arument would have more merrit. Additionally, if the author would be precise of how the budget would be relocated and provide an substantial argument of how this would improve the museums the argument would have a concrete base to rest upon.
