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 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 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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
04 Apr 2023, 13:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question:
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 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 relocated to public television.”
Answer:
The argument states that the threat of severe cuts faced by the corporate funding that supports public television, where most visual arts program appear, is likely to lead to a decrease in attendance of people at the city arts museums. As a result, the author claims that some of the city's funds should be relocated to public television. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument falsely compares percentages of a population separated of a 5 year gap and deem it acceptable as reliable evidence. This piece of data is not substantiated in any way since the number of people in a population can change drastically over the course of a 5 year period. Additionally, we have no poof that the people answering the poll are comparatively close in the two periods of time. For example, out of a population of 500,000 people in 2015, 10% (50,000 people) could have answered the poll. Whereas out of a population of 600,000 people in 2020, 50% could have answered the poll (300,000 people). The argument could have been considerably strengthened had the author provided absolute numbers about the population in question in each of the two time frames as well as the number of people who answered the poll.
Second, the argument seems to believe in a correlation between the percentage of people watching the television programs about visual arts and the number of people visiting the city arts museums. Also, the argument claims that the threat of severe cuts will impact the attendance rate of people to arts museums. This is a very weak and unconvincing claim since the author fails to demonstrate any ground on which a correlation could stand.
Without any data to back the claims, we cannot believe that cuts in budget (if the threats come to fruition) will undoubtably lead to a decline in attendance. For all we know, people attending might not even watch television, let alone watch the programs related to arts museums. We also don't know the budget allocated to the tv programs that are discussed in the argument. On what basis can we conclude that additional funds should be relocated to public television? What if the production company was being granted an over-budget? And thus, a cut in the budget wouldn't seriously affect the progress of the tv programs. Without any convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, the argument is flawed and heavily erroneous for the above mentioned reasons.It could be significantly bolstered had the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contribution factors.
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 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 relocated to public television.”
Answer:
The argument states that the threat of severe cuts faced by the corporate funding that supports public television, where most visual arts program appear, is likely to lead to a decrease in attendance of people at the city arts museums. As a result, the author claims that some of the city's funds should be relocated to public television. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated, and reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is flawed and unconvincing.
First, the argument falsely compares percentages of a population separated of a 5 year gap and deem it acceptable as reliable evidence. This piece of data is not substantiated in any way since the number of people in a population can change drastically over the course of a 5 year period. Additionally, we have no poof that the people answering the poll are comparatively close in the two periods of time. For example, out of a population of 500,000 people in 2015, 10% (50,000 people) could have answered the poll. Whereas out of a population of 600,000 people in 2020, 50% could have answered the poll (300,000 people). The argument could have been considerably strengthened had the author provided absolute numbers about the population in question in each of the two time frames as well as the number of people who answered the poll.
Second, the argument seems to believe in a correlation between the percentage of people watching the television programs about visual arts and the number of people visiting the city arts museums. Also, the argument claims that the threat of severe cuts will impact the attendance rate of people to arts museums. This is a very weak and unconvincing claim since the author fails to demonstrate any ground on which a correlation could stand.
Without any data to back the claims, we cannot believe that cuts in budget (if the threats come to fruition) will undoubtably lead to a decline in attendance. For all we know, people attending might not even watch television, let alone watch the programs related to arts museums. We also don't know the budget allocated to the tv programs that are discussed in the argument. On what basis can we conclude that additional funds should be relocated to public television? What if the production company was being granted an over-budget? And thus, a cut in the budget wouldn't seriously affect the progress of the tv programs. Without any convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, the argument is flawed and heavily erroneous for the above mentioned reasons.It could be significantly bolstered had the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is important to have full knowledge of all contribution factors.
Archit3110
Major Poster
05 Apr 2023, 08:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-get-6 ... 64327.html
is the link which you can follow for AWA .. over all your essay is good , you may use the template shared and include key words in the essay
is the link which you can follow for AWA .. over all your essay is good , you may use the template shared and include key words in the essay
05 Apr 2023, 08:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5.5 - 6 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 5/6
The essay exhibits good coherence and connectivity. It has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author uses transition words effectively to connect ideas and sentences within and between paragraphs.
Word Structure: 6/6
The author uses precise and varied vocabulary to convey their message effectively. There are no instances of incorrect word usage, and the sentences are well-structured.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 6/6
The paragraphs in the essay are well-structured, and the author effectively uses topic sentences and supporting details to develop their argument. The essay is organized into clear and concise paragraphs, each with a central idea that supports the thesis.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The language used in the essay is clear and concise. The author uses correct grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation throughout the essay. There are no instances of awkward phrasing or unclear language.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5.5/6
The author uses a varied and precise vocabulary, with only a few instances of repetition or overuse of certain words. The essay could benefit from a greater range of vocabulary to further enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the argument.
Overall, the essay is well-written and effectively conveys the author's argument. The author demonstrates a clear understanding of the flaws in the original argument and provides a thorough analysis of the evidence used. The essay could benefit from some additional support and elaboration, but it is well-organized, well-written, and effectively communicates the author's ideas.
Coherence and Connectivity: 5/6
The essay exhibits good coherence and connectivity. It has a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The author uses transition words effectively to connect ideas and sentences within and between paragraphs.
Word Structure: 6/6
The author uses precise and varied vocabulary to convey their message effectively. There are no instances of incorrect word usage, and the sentences are well-structured.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 6/6
The paragraphs in the essay are well-structured, and the author effectively uses topic sentences and supporting details to develop their argument. The essay is organized into clear and concise paragraphs, each with a central idea that supports the thesis.
Language and Grammar: 6/6
The language used in the essay is clear and concise. The author uses correct grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation throughout the essay. There are no instances of awkward phrasing or unclear language.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5.5/6
The author uses a varied and precise vocabulary, with only a few instances of repetition or overuse of certain words. The essay could benefit from a greater range of vocabulary to further enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the argument.
Overall, the essay is well-written and effectively conveys the author's argument. The author demonstrates a clear understanding of the flaws in the original argument and provides a thorough analysis of the evidence used. The essay could benefit from some additional support and elaboration, but it is well-organized, well-written, and effectively communicates the author's ideas.
JadKhairallah
