|
|
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.
01 Aug 2021, 10:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello everyone,
I am currently preparing for the GMAT and have practised a few essays for the AWA section. I have reviewed them myself and have realised that I could improve in few areas. However, I would like some unbiased and constructive reviews from you all. The essay prompt is mentioned below in quotes followed by my response essay. Please do select a rating on the poll to rate my essay and post any additional reviews if you like.
Thank you in advance.
QUESTION PROMPT:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
“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.
MY ESSAY
The argument is based on the premise that since according to a recent survey the percentage of residents that said that it watched television programs about visual arts was 15 percent greater than the percentage that did five years ago, the public television funding must be increased. This increase in percentage of population interested in the visual arts is also correlated to the hike in number of people that visit the city's arts museum. The assumptions made in the argument are plenty and seem slightly unsupported by facts.
Correlation does not imply Causality: The greater percentage in television viewers might suggest that more people have started showing interest in the visual arts but this fact does not necessarily imply that it is the absolute cause. Moreover, it is mentioned that television is the medium where most visual arts appear but it does not clarify if the increasing number of television viewers is in fact from the number watching visual arts specifically. Factors such as lack of other viable options and less screen time allotted to other genres could be the primary causes behind such an occurrence. Moreover, there is no emphasis on the specific genre of art available in the city museum. In fact, it is not at all clear whether the art on display in the museum and the art that’s shown on television are categorically the same. Different ages and sections of the population could be interested in both the types of arts. Also, it would be safer to know whether raising the television funds would in fact, affect the visual arts programs shown on it.
Ambiguous data: The argument mentions that the survey was conducted recently but does not clarify how recent. Recent could mean six months to a year or even more. More information is needed with respect to this part of the argument. Furthermore, a recent result may not justify the observed increment in the museum rush. Another fact that needs to be investigated is the comparison of percentage of population- depicted in the results of the survey as well as the museum crowd. The population today could be much more than it was five years ago and consequently 15 percent five years ago could be much lesser than 15 percent today. This disparity could destroy the assumptions in the argument.
The above observations conclude that since numerous predispositions are made in the argument with unsupported facts the argument seems not fully convincing. Some deeper studies need to be done before a more concrete conclusion can be established.
I am currently preparing for the GMAT and have practised a few essays for the AWA section. I have reviewed them myself and have realised that I could improve in few areas. However, I would like some unbiased and constructive reviews from you all. The essay prompt is mentioned below in quotes followed by my response essay. Please do select a rating on the poll to rate my essay and post any additional reviews if you like.
Thank you in advance.
QUESTION PROMPT:
The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:
“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.
MY ESSAY
The argument is based on the premise that since according to a recent survey the percentage of residents that said that it watched television programs about visual arts was 15 percent greater than the percentage that did five years ago, the public television funding must be increased. This increase in percentage of population interested in the visual arts is also correlated to the hike in number of people that visit the city's arts museum. The assumptions made in the argument are plenty and seem slightly unsupported by facts.
Correlation does not imply Causality: The greater percentage in television viewers might suggest that more people have started showing interest in the visual arts but this fact does not necessarily imply that it is the absolute cause. Moreover, it is mentioned that television is the medium where most visual arts appear but it does not clarify if the increasing number of television viewers is in fact from the number watching visual arts specifically. Factors such as lack of other viable options and less screen time allotted to other genres could be the primary causes behind such an occurrence. Moreover, there is no emphasis on the specific genre of art available in the city museum. In fact, it is not at all clear whether the art on display in the museum and the art that’s shown on television are categorically the same. Different ages and sections of the population could be interested in both the types of arts. Also, it would be safer to know whether raising the television funds would in fact, affect the visual arts programs shown on it.
Ambiguous data: The argument mentions that the survey was conducted recently but does not clarify how recent. Recent could mean six months to a year or even more. More information is needed with respect to this part of the argument. Furthermore, a recent result may not justify the observed increment in the museum rush. Another fact that needs to be investigated is the comparison of percentage of population- depicted in the results of the survey as well as the museum crowd. The population today could be much more than it was five years ago and consequently 15 percent five years ago could be much lesser than 15 percent today. This disparity could destroy the assumptions in the argument.
The above observations conclude that since numerous predispositions are made in the argument with unsupported facts the argument seems not fully convincing. Some deeper studies need to be done before a more concrete conclusion can be established.
03 Aug 2021, 06:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Overall I'd say this would get a 4 - 4.5 (but other experts, give your own thoughts, I'm not great at gauging essay scores).
The writing itself is good. Meaning, there are few grammatical mistakes, your thoughts are organized, etc.
The main thing to look at here is the 'Critical Reasoning' aspect of the essay (Essays are basically assumption family CR questions).
For specific points:
I hoped to see a very explicit: "It's possible that both the increase in art program viewers and the increase in art museum attendance are caused by a third factor, and not that the art programs are causing museum attendance," and/or "It's possible that attending the museum drove interest in art that caused the increase in TV viewers of art programs." You seem to imply there might be one cause increasing viewers and another cause increasing museum attendance, and definitely suggest that the increase in museum attendance might be caused by something other than the TV programs, but never quite mention that a common cause might lead to increases in both program viewers and museum attendance.
You write "Moreover, it is mentioned that television is the medium where most visual arts appear but it does not clarify if the increasing number of television viewers is in fact from the number watching visual arts specifically"
But the prompt doesn't mention generic increase in television viewers. It specifies an increase in viewers of programs about visual arts. It says most of these programs are on public television, so it would be a good point to ask if most viewers are watching *those specific programs*, or if, maybe, there is a very popular program that almost everyone watches that is not on public television, but it seems you've interpreted the prompt to mean 'television viewing is up 15%, and there are art programs on public television.'
The point about 'recent, but how recent' seems a little soft.
I also don't quite follow this point:
"Another fact that needs to be investigated is the comparison of percentage of population- depicted in the results of the survey as well as the museum crowd. The population today could be much more than it was five years ago and consequently 15 percent five years ago could be much lesser than 15 percent today"
The passage doesn't mention '15% of the entire population.' It says that the number of people viewing art shows and the number attending art museums have both increased by ~15%.
I think it would be a very solid point to ask about population growth. If the total population has grown by 15%, well... it makes sense that these groups also grew by 15%. I think you were going for this idea, but I can't quite see it in a the comparison of '15% of the population 5 years ago' and '15% of the population today.'
In an essay, you want to find ASSUMPTIONS, possible STRENGTHENERS, and possible WEAKENERS. Some examples are below (a * means you mention it)
ASSUMPTIONS:
--The survey is accurate and unbiased, and responders were honest (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point).
--The cause of museum attendance is not something besides the TV programs*
--Going to the museum isn't what caused people to watch more art programs.
--The increases in viewers of art programs and in museum attendance do not correspond closely to an increase in population (you dance around this one)
--The TV programs that people are watching are the programs on public television
--The cuts to public television will result in fewer programs/viewers of programs about the arts
STRENGTHENERS:
--Anything to verify the survey results (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point).
--Anything that indicates new museum attendees are new viewers of art programs, and even better, that the new museum attendees are there because they saw the TV programs.
--A population growth in the city of <15%
--Data that shows the viewers watch art programs on public TV and not on other channels.
--Information that the art programs will be among the cuts.
WEAKENERS:
--The art in the museum is completely different from the art in the programs*
--The survey in either year was biased or misleading (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point, though I just don't think that's the tack to take for this argument).
--Anything that could cause both increases (e.g. an expansion of art programs in schools).
--Anything that shows museum attendees aren't viewers of the shows, or aren't there because of the shows.
--Data that shows art programs on non-public TV get a majority of the views.
--That the art programs won't get cut.
--A population growth in the city of 15% or more (again, you dance around this one).
There are other points to be made, but these are some that jumped out to me. You mention a few, tiptoe close to others. But some you overlook, and some of the points you do make seem to imply a misinterpretation of the argument in the prompt. The writing is strong, and the thoughts are organized. Hence, a 4-4.5.
Since the biggest issue here was the 'CR' aspect of the essay, here are a few videos that might help:
The Three Key Questions of CR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfTcOr6zJjs
How to review RC and CR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xem2vqS ... e=youtu.be
(EDIT FOR ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS I JUST HAD: Another big assumption is that the 'corporate funding' is a substantial portion of the overall funding, or if much of the funding for public television comes from donations and public funds.
The first thing to do in the essay is to really map out the arguments logic:
PREMISES:
--15% increase in viewers of art programs on TV. Similar increase in art museum attendance.
--Many art programs are on public TV
--Corporate funding for public TV about to get slashed.
CONCLUSION 1: We can expect a decrease in art museum attendance.
CONCLUSION 2: We should allocate funds that support the arts to public TV, which will keep art museum attendance up.)
The writing itself is good. Meaning, there are few grammatical mistakes, your thoughts are organized, etc.
The main thing to look at here is the 'Critical Reasoning' aspect of the essay (Essays are basically assumption family CR questions).
For specific points:
I hoped to see a very explicit: "It's possible that both the increase in art program viewers and the increase in art museum attendance are caused by a third factor, and not that the art programs are causing museum attendance," and/or "It's possible that attending the museum drove interest in art that caused the increase in TV viewers of art programs." You seem to imply there might be one cause increasing viewers and another cause increasing museum attendance, and definitely suggest that the increase in museum attendance might be caused by something other than the TV programs, but never quite mention that a common cause might lead to increases in both program viewers and museum attendance.
You write "Moreover, it is mentioned that television is the medium where most visual arts appear but it does not clarify if the increasing number of television viewers is in fact from the number watching visual arts specifically"
But the prompt doesn't mention generic increase in television viewers. It specifies an increase in viewers of programs about visual arts. It says most of these programs are on public television, so it would be a good point to ask if most viewers are watching *those specific programs*, or if, maybe, there is a very popular program that almost everyone watches that is not on public television, but it seems you've interpreted the prompt to mean 'television viewing is up 15%, and there are art programs on public television.'
The point about 'recent, but how recent' seems a little soft.
I also don't quite follow this point:
"Another fact that needs to be investigated is the comparison of percentage of population- depicted in the results of the survey as well as the museum crowd. The population today could be much more than it was five years ago and consequently 15 percent five years ago could be much lesser than 15 percent today"
The passage doesn't mention '15% of the entire population.' It says that the number of people viewing art shows and the number attending art museums have both increased by ~15%.
I think it would be a very solid point to ask about population growth. If the total population has grown by 15%, well... it makes sense that these groups also grew by 15%. I think you were going for this idea, but I can't quite see it in a the comparison of '15% of the population 5 years ago' and '15% of the population today.'
In an essay, you want to find ASSUMPTIONS, possible STRENGTHENERS, and possible WEAKENERS. Some examples are below (a * means you mention it)
ASSUMPTIONS:
--The survey is accurate and unbiased, and responders were honest (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point).
--The cause of museum attendance is not something besides the TV programs*
--Going to the museum isn't what caused people to watch more art programs.
--The increases in viewers of art programs and in museum attendance do not correspond closely to an increase in population (you dance around this one)
--The TV programs that people are watching are the programs on public television
--The cuts to public television will result in fewer programs/viewers of programs about the arts
STRENGTHENERS:
--Anything to verify the survey results (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point).
--Anything that indicates new museum attendees are new viewers of art programs, and even better, that the new museum attendees are there because they saw the TV programs.
--A population growth in the city of <15%
--Data that shows the viewers watch art programs on public TV and not on other channels.
--Information that the art programs will be among the cuts.
WEAKENERS:
--The art in the museum is completely different from the art in the programs*
--The survey in either year was biased or misleading (you dance around this with the 'recent but how recent' point, though I just don't think that's the tack to take for this argument).
--Anything that could cause both increases (e.g. an expansion of art programs in schools).
--Anything that shows museum attendees aren't viewers of the shows, or aren't there because of the shows.
--Data that shows art programs on non-public TV get a majority of the views.
--That the art programs won't get cut.
--A population growth in the city of 15% or more (again, you dance around this one).
There are other points to be made, but these are some that jumped out to me. You mention a few, tiptoe close to others. But some you overlook, and some of the points you do make seem to imply a misinterpretation of the argument in the prompt. The writing is strong, and the thoughts are organized. Hence, a 4-4.5.
Since the biggest issue here was the 'CR' aspect of the essay, here are a few videos that might help:
The Three Key Questions of CR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfTcOr6zJjs
How to review RC and CR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xem2vqS ... e=youtu.be
(EDIT FOR ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS I JUST HAD: Another big assumption is that the 'corporate funding' is a substantial portion of the overall funding, or if much of the funding for public television comes from donations and public funds.
The first thing to do in the essay is to really map out the arguments logic:
PREMISES:
--15% increase in viewers of art programs on TV. Similar increase in art museum attendance.
--Many art programs are on public TV
--Corporate funding for public TV about to get slashed.
CONCLUSION 1: We can expect a decrease in art museum attendance.
CONCLUSION 2: We should allocate funds that support the arts to public TV, which will keep art museum attendance up.)
04 Aug 2021, 22:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi, ReedArnoldMPREP
Thank you so much for taking out the time to review my essay. I have gone through your review and agree with you on all points. I re-read my essay and realised that there were many mistakes/misinterpretations. Will pay more attention to the details and assumptions made in the prompts before writing my essays in the future. Your tips have been very helpful. Thank you!
Thank you so much for taking out the time to review my essay. I have gone through your review and agree with you on all points. I re-read my essay and realised that there were many mistakes/misinterpretations. Will pay more attention to the details and assumptions made in the prompts before writing my essays in the future. Your tips have been very helpful. Thank you!
