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!
06 Jan 2022, 14:30
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.”
Response:
The memorandum states that since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual art programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, the city can expect that the attendance at the art museum will also decrease. This argument is based on various assumptions with no clear evidence. Unless the author provides additional evidences, as discussed below, the argument remains vulnerable to criticism.
Firstly, the author presents the results of citywide poll that showed that 15 percent more residents said that they watched television programs about visual arts than was the case 5 years ago. This comparison proves to be an unconvincing premise for the stated conclusion because it only talks about percentage change since last 5 years, but fails to include information on demographics of the population. It is possible that the residents who responded to the poll were not a true representative of the population thereby leading to incorrect results. The argument could be strengthened if the author provides additional evidence on the population and sampling of the survey.
Next, the author again states that during the last 5 years, the number of museum visitors also increased by a similar percentage. This claim does not do much to support the argument as it only compares the percentage change in the number of people visiting museums. The author here fails to consider the possibility that although the number of visitors increased, if the total population also increased by a bigger proportion then it would mean that overall proportion of population visiting the museum has decreased. If the author provides additional information on the change in total population then the argument would be more convincing.
Thirdly, the argument claims that if funding for public television is cut then it would lead to lower foot-fall of residents in the museum. This claim is a stretch as it assumes that because there is an increase in television viewership by 15% from last 5 years and there is also an increase in the number of people visiting museum, by the same percentage, then it means that television has led to increase in museum visits. The argument does not consider the fact that these two could be two independent occurrences, not influenced by each other. If the author provides additional information that establishes a strong correlation between these two events, the argument could be significantly strengthened.
Finally, the argument concludes that to avoid decrease in foot-fall at the museum, the author city should reallocate some of its funds from supporting the arts to supporting the television. This conclusion is unconvincing because on one hand it intends to increase investment in television to increase viewership and influence viewers to visit museums, but on the other hand it demands that funding from support for arts should be removed. This would do more harm to museum visits than good because if funding towards arts is reduced then it would lead to degradation of upkeep of the museums due to which fewer people would want to visit them. If the author provides an alternate course of action then this argument would be more convincing.
To summarize, due to the various logical fallacies stated above, this argument is convincing. To strengthen it, the author must remove ambiguity, provide additional required information and propose a better course of action to achieve its goal. In the absence of these improvements, the argument remains weak 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 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.”
Response:
The memorandum states that since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual art programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, the city can expect that the attendance at the art museum will also decrease. This argument is based on various assumptions with no clear evidence. Unless the author provides additional evidences, as discussed below, the argument remains vulnerable to criticism.
Firstly, the author presents the results of citywide poll that showed that 15 percent more residents said that they watched television programs about visual arts than was the case 5 years ago. This comparison proves to be an unconvincing premise for the stated conclusion because it only talks about percentage change since last 5 years, but fails to include information on demographics of the population. It is possible that the residents who responded to the poll were not a true representative of the population thereby leading to incorrect results. The argument could be strengthened if the author provides additional evidence on the population and sampling of the survey.
Next, the author again states that during the last 5 years, the number of museum visitors also increased by a similar percentage. This claim does not do much to support the argument as it only compares the percentage change in the number of people visiting museums. The author here fails to consider the possibility that although the number of visitors increased, if the total population also increased by a bigger proportion then it would mean that overall proportion of population visiting the museum has decreased. If the author provides additional information on the change in total population then the argument would be more convincing.
Thirdly, the argument claims that if funding for public television is cut then it would lead to lower foot-fall of residents in the museum. This claim is a stretch as it assumes that because there is an increase in television viewership by 15% from last 5 years and there is also an increase in the number of people visiting museum, by the same percentage, then it means that television has led to increase in museum visits. The argument does not consider the fact that these two could be two independent occurrences, not influenced by each other. If the author provides additional information that establishes a strong correlation between these two events, the argument could be significantly strengthened.
Finally, the argument concludes that to avoid decrease in foot-fall at the museum, the author city should reallocate some of its funds from supporting the arts to supporting the television. This conclusion is unconvincing because on one hand it intends to increase investment in television to increase viewership and influence viewers to visit museums, but on the other hand it demands that funding from support for arts should be removed. This would do more harm to museum visits than good because if funding towards arts is reduced then it would lead to degradation of upkeep of the museums due to which fewer people would want to visit them. If the author provides an alternate course of action then this argument would be more convincing.
To summarize, due to the various logical fallacies stated above, this argument is convincing. To strengthen it, the author must remove ambiguity, provide additional required information and propose a better course of action to achieve its goal. In the absence of these improvements, the argument remains weak and open to debate.
07 Jan 2022, 11:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luck
KM121132
Moderator:
