Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 00:27 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 00:27
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
avatar
rimu
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Last visit: 16 Oct 2019
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 19
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Operations
WE:Operations (Advertising and PR)
Posts: 3
Kudos: 5
Please evaluate my AWA 07 Aug 2019, 06:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Businessconquerer
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Last visit: 07 Jul 2025
Posts: 2,809
Own Kudos:
1,191
 [1]
Given Kudos: 185
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 2,809
Kudos: 1,191
 [1]
Please evaluate my AWA 10 Aug 2019, 12:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rimu
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.
Show more

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.
avatar
rimu
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2014
Last visit: 16 Oct 2019
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 19
Location: Canada
Concentration: Finance, Operations
WE:Operations (Advertising and PR)
Posts: 3
Kudos: 5
Please evaluate my AWA 11 Aug 2019, 03:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Businessconquerer
rimu
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.
Show more


Hi,
Thanks for the template.
Moderator:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts