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 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.
04 Jan 2024, 09:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi all, if I could please get a rating out of 6 on this essay prompt I would greatly appreciate it!
Prompt: 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 you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:
The argument states that in order to maintain attendance at the city’s art museums, the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. However, the argument relies on baseless jumps to conclusion, dubious evidence, and illogical reasoning to arrive at this statement. Consequently, the argument is weak, flawed, and fails to make a convincing stance supporting its claim.
To begin with, the city’s council mentions in the argument that in a recent city wide poll, viewership of arts programs increased by 15% compared to 5 years ago, and that the number of visitors to the city’s art museums also increased by a similar percentage. Though this evidence may seem reasonable at first, closer inspection reveals many flaws in its logic. First, it is possible that the viewership base of these arts programs is different from the attendance base of those who actually go to the museums, and that those who watch the art’s programs may not feel a need to go to the museum in person and vice versa. Additionally, museum attendees could be coming from out of town while the art’s programs statistics only discusses in-city viewership, showing another lack of judgement. The city’s council could have bolstered this argument with more concrete evidence tying the fact that art’s program viewership and museum attendance share a multitude of common factors and that this statistic is not just a coincidence.
Secondly, the city’s council brings up the recent news that because corporate funding that supports public television is receiving severe cuts, they believe their city’s art museum attendance will also severely decrease. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between public television and art museums, and fails to elaborate on the relevant factors. First of all, even if corporate funding that supports public television is severely cut, there is no mention of the budget coming from other sources, such as government or tax funding for these programs; consequently, it is possible that corporate funding doesn’t even make up the majority of funding for public television in the first place, making this budget cut rather irrelevant. On top of this, even if funding is severely cut for public television, there is no concrete evidence presented that shows that people attend art museums because of these television programs, and there are many other factors to why attendance has gone up in the past 5 years: good reputation via word of mouth, tourists learning about the city’s main attraction through the internet, and repeat visitors who enjoy this city’s art museum in particular. As a result, while it is plausible that some who go to art museums due to their viewership of art’s programs may not attend anymore due to this new budget cut, that does not mean that overall attendance will be significantly impacted by this change. Lastly, even if the corporate funding cuts results in certain television programs and channels being cut, the argument makes no mention of whether visual arts programs specifically would be affected by this change, thereby making it dubious if this is even an issue worth considering in the first place. If the city’s council buttressed their argument with indisputable graphs or data showing the negative impact of the budget cuts specifically on art’s programs and the corresponding correlation between these programs and the city’s art museum attendance, this would make for a much more convincing case.
Finally, the argument concludes with the desire to redirect funds that are supporting to arts to support public television instead. The evidence previously discussed does not show that this would make any sort of positive impact in art museum attendance, and there are many potential negative consequences that could come as a result of this action. To illustrate, moving funds from the arts to public television could potentially cause the art museum to end up closing down if it does not have enough funds to continue running the facility; in fact, it is plausible that the city is the only sponsor for the art museum to continue staying open. Furthermore, because it has already been discussed how the argument doesn’t solidify the trend between television viewership and art museum attendance, or whether the budget cuts will even have any effects on overall public television at all, there is no guarantee that the redirection in funds will result in any effects on the television side of the issue. Consequently, such a decision should not be made so hastily without first verifying whether the city’s council has identified the correct factors, which by the discussions made previously is highly unlikely.
In conclusion, the argument fails to make a solid point devoid of apparent flaws regarding how to maintain its art museum attendance and for the above-mentioned reasons is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the situation in its entirety and find its merits, the city’s council needs to strengthen its argument by providing further undeniable evidence regarding all the trends between public television budgets, television viewership, and art museum attendance.
Prompt: 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 you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Essay:
The argument states that in order to maintain attendance at the city’s art museums, the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. However, the argument relies on baseless jumps to conclusion, dubious evidence, and illogical reasoning to arrive at this statement. Consequently, the argument is weak, flawed, and fails to make a convincing stance supporting its claim.
To begin with, the city’s council mentions in the argument that in a recent city wide poll, viewership of arts programs increased by 15% compared to 5 years ago, and that the number of visitors to the city’s art museums also increased by a similar percentage. Though this evidence may seem reasonable at first, closer inspection reveals many flaws in its logic. First, it is possible that the viewership base of these arts programs is different from the attendance base of those who actually go to the museums, and that those who watch the art’s programs may not feel a need to go to the museum in person and vice versa. Additionally, museum attendees could be coming from out of town while the art’s programs statistics only discusses in-city viewership, showing another lack of judgement. The city’s council could have bolstered this argument with more concrete evidence tying the fact that art’s program viewership and museum attendance share a multitude of common factors and that this statistic is not just a coincidence.
Secondly, the city’s council brings up the recent news that because corporate funding that supports public television is receiving severe cuts, they believe their city’s art museum attendance will also severely decrease. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between public television and art museums, and fails to elaborate on the relevant factors. First of all, even if corporate funding that supports public television is severely cut, there is no mention of the budget coming from other sources, such as government or tax funding for these programs; consequently, it is possible that corporate funding doesn’t even make up the majority of funding for public television in the first place, making this budget cut rather irrelevant. On top of this, even if funding is severely cut for public television, there is no concrete evidence presented that shows that people attend art museums because of these television programs, and there are many other factors to why attendance has gone up in the past 5 years: good reputation via word of mouth, tourists learning about the city’s main attraction through the internet, and repeat visitors who enjoy this city’s art museum in particular. As a result, while it is plausible that some who go to art museums due to their viewership of art’s programs may not attend anymore due to this new budget cut, that does not mean that overall attendance will be significantly impacted by this change. Lastly, even if the corporate funding cuts results in certain television programs and channels being cut, the argument makes no mention of whether visual arts programs specifically would be affected by this change, thereby making it dubious if this is even an issue worth considering in the first place. If the city’s council buttressed their argument with indisputable graphs or data showing the negative impact of the budget cuts specifically on art’s programs and the corresponding correlation between these programs and the city’s art museum attendance, this would make for a much more convincing case.
Finally, the argument concludes with the desire to redirect funds that are supporting to arts to support public television instead. The evidence previously discussed does not show that this would make any sort of positive impact in art museum attendance, and there are many potential negative consequences that could come as a result of this action. To illustrate, moving funds from the arts to public television could potentially cause the art museum to end up closing down if it does not have enough funds to continue running the facility; in fact, it is plausible that the city is the only sponsor for the art museum to continue staying open. Furthermore, because it has already been discussed how the argument doesn’t solidify the trend between television viewership and art museum attendance, or whether the budget cuts will even have any effects on overall public television at all, there is no guarantee that the redirection in funds will result in any effects on the television side of the issue. Consequently, such a decision should not be made so hastily without first verifying whether the city’s council has identified the correct factors, which by the discussions made previously is highly unlikely.
In conclusion, the argument fails to make a solid point devoid of apparent flaws regarding how to maintain its art museum attendance and for the above-mentioned reasons is therefore unconvincing. In order to assess the situation in its entirety and find its merits, the city’s council needs to strengthen its argument by providing further undeniable evidence regarding all the trends between public television budgets, television viewership, and art museum attendance.
04 Jan 2024, 12:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA Score: 5 - 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity (5.5/6):
The essay exhibits a high level of coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph is logically connected to the preceding one, and there is a clear progression of ideas. Transitions between sentences and paragraphs are well-executed, guiding the reader through a systematic analysis of the argument. The essay consistently maintains a focus on the main points, contributing to a coherent and well-structured response.
Word structure (5.5/6):
The word structure is effective, with a diverse range of vocabulary and well-crafted sentences. The essay demonstrates a strong command of language, and the choice of words enhances the clarity and precision of the argument. Some sentences could be slightly more concise, but overall, the word structure contributes significantly to the essay's overall quality.
Paragraph structure and formation (5.5/6):
Paragraphs are well-structured and serve their purpose effectively. Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, and ideas are presented in a logical order. The introduction and conclusion provide a clear framework for the essay, and the body paragraphs are appropriately developed. The organization contributes to the overall coherence of the essay.
Language and Grammar (5/6):
The language used is sophisticated and appropriate for an analytical essay. Grammar is generally strong, with few errors. However, there are a few instances where sentence structure could be slightly improved for smoother readability. Additionally, there is a slight overuse of certain phrases (e.g., "the argument," "art museum attendance"), and some variation in expression could enhance the overall quality.
Vocabulary and word expression (5.5/6):
The vocabulary used is rich and varied, contributing to the essay's overall persuasiveness. The writer effectively conveys nuanced ideas using precise language. While the essay generally maintains a high level of vocabulary, a bit more variety in word choice could further elevate the expression in certain sections.
Coherence and connectivity (5.5/6):
The essay exhibits a high level of coherence and connectivity. Each paragraph is logically connected to the preceding one, and there is a clear progression of ideas. Transitions between sentences and paragraphs are well-executed, guiding the reader through a systematic analysis of the argument. The essay consistently maintains a focus on the main points, contributing to a coherent and well-structured response.
Word structure (5.5/6):
The word structure is effective, with a diverse range of vocabulary and well-crafted sentences. The essay demonstrates a strong command of language, and the choice of words enhances the clarity and precision of the argument. Some sentences could be slightly more concise, but overall, the word structure contributes significantly to the essay's overall quality.
Paragraph structure and formation (5.5/6):
Paragraphs are well-structured and serve their purpose effectively. Each paragraph addresses a specific aspect of the argument, and ideas are presented in a logical order. The introduction and conclusion provide a clear framework for the essay, and the body paragraphs are appropriately developed. The organization contributes to the overall coherence of the essay.
Language and Grammar (5/6):
The language used is sophisticated and appropriate for an analytical essay. Grammar is generally strong, with few errors. However, there are a few instances where sentence structure could be slightly improved for smoother readability. Additionally, there is a slight overuse of certain phrases (e.g., "the argument," "art museum attendance"), and some variation in expression could enhance the overall quality.
Vocabulary and word expression (5.5/6):
The vocabulary used is rich and varied, contributing to the essay's overall persuasiveness. The writer effectively conveys nuanced ideas using precise language. While the essay generally maintains a high level of vocabulary, a bit more variety in word choice could further elevate the expression in certain sections.
wasario
Moderator:
