GMAT Essays (AWA)

Hi,
I would very appreciate if somebody takes time to rate my essay. Thanks in advance for the great work you do.

-Elena


------------------------------------------
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 . . . etc.
-----------------------------------------------

The author provides several premises and arguments of how watching television programs about the visual arts and visiting city's art museums is interdependent, however, her/his logic is not supported with evidence and has serious flaws, therefore, cannot be accepted for valid.

Primary issue is that author does not provide enough evidence that watching television programs about arts lead to visiting museums. There are many factors that influence people's desire to visit exhibitions and they are not necessary connected to television that are not explained in this text. Even thought author added the recent poll information, it doesn't help to prove that the same quantity of people who watch television and go to museums are connected, it is even possible that this percentage represents different people. It is possible that people who watch art programs never go to museums and the other way around. Moreover, there is no information provided about how many people took part in two polls provided by the author, it is important to know in this text because if the quantity of the people in the first poll is smaller that in the second, it can, therefore, seem like a growth of the people who like art, but actually is just the different number of the residents asked. That's why the additional information or study should be provided to support author's opinion about this linkage.

Secondary problem about the author argument is that he assumes that people who go to museums are attracted to it by the television program. There is a serious flaw in this logic because it is possible that people who go to museums don't watch television at all, that's why the cut off on the public television will not influence their visiting habits at all. To straighten the argument and prove that the people who go to museums are actually driven to it by television program the additional survey should be added by the author to understand the quantity of museum visitors who likes to watch programs about art or even public television in general.


There are many good points made by the author in this memorandum, however, to seriously straighten his/her arguments in this text the additional information should be added to clarify the premises and add additional prove of the author's logic. To sum up, the premises and arguments in this text contain several flaws, not enough evidence to support it, that's why cannot lead to the conclusion made by the author.

Hey Elena,

Please find my thoughts here.

I would rate this at around 4 - 4.5. I am not an expert but had scored a 5.0 in AWA once.

Few inputs

1) Preferably, the paragraphs should be of same length. This does not impact the score, but as a general reader, the data looks consistent and gives a psychological advantage.

2) Try not to repeat the points over paragraphs, 'It is possible that people who watch art programs never go to museums and the other way around", in the "Primary Issue..." paragraph looks similar to " it is possible that people who go to museums don't watch television at all" from the "Secondary Problem..." paragraph.

3) As a general approach, it is nice define to what 'art' , observing art in museums and watching art in television as against watching art in museum should be defined in the first paragraph and then break it apart from definition itself. That is the best way to attack an argument. It is the best way to beat it to hell!!!

I only want to provide positive feedback and help you if possible.

Happy Learning !!

Thanks
HK

Hello,
thanks a lot for these comments, I really appreciate you taking time and scoring.
I would try to eliminate these mistakes in future.

Thanks again

-Elena