-
Marika
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:32 am
- Location: Georgia
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:520
Hi,
Its again me:)))))
This is second.
PLS, rank it and post your suggestions.
Thanks a lot
In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about visual arts than was 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 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.
In this argument appears recommendation to reallocate city’s funds for supporting the art museums to public television. However, this recommendation rests on numerous unproven, dubious assumptions – about citywide poll, about cities residents, about the impact of TV visual arts programs on attendance of art’s museums.
As a result, the argument is unconvincing at best, as discussed below. To begin with, the argument rests on two unsubstantiated assumptions involving the cited results of citywide poll. One such assumption is that increasing visits city’s art museums as reference source will necessarily result in increased watch television programs about visual arts. While this might be the case, the authors must provide evidence to substantiate this assumption.
A second such assumption is that if 15 percent of people who said that they watch TV programs about visual arts are the same people who increased number of people who really visit museums. The council provides no substantiating evidence for this crucial assumption; lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that residents involving in poll(these 15 percent), have little interest – for whatever reason – in visiting museums , and therefore that the proposed plan is not in their best interests.
Yet another problem with the argument involves the fact that we van not be sure if we can compare results of five years ago poll and results of recent poll.
We don’t know info about residents, sample size, sample age and segment. Thus without reliable demographic projections and detailed information about the polls conducted method, council cannot convince me that the reallocation of funds to TV helps to increase the attendance in museums.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, rather then relying on a dubious analogy between 5 year ago and recent polls, and pointless conclusion that TV visual art programs impact on attendance in museums, the council should provide better evidence – perhaps by way of a museum attending persons survey – to be aware of which motives have visitors, why they decide to attend museum and if they benefit from a new TV programs.
Its again me:)))))
This is second.
PLS, rank it and post your suggestions.
Thanks a lot
In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about visual arts than was 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 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.
In this argument appears recommendation to reallocate city’s funds for supporting the art museums to public television. However, this recommendation rests on numerous unproven, dubious assumptions – about citywide poll, about cities residents, about the impact of TV visual arts programs on attendance of art’s museums.
As a result, the argument is unconvincing at best, as discussed below. To begin with, the argument rests on two unsubstantiated assumptions involving the cited results of citywide poll. One such assumption is that increasing visits city’s art museums as reference source will necessarily result in increased watch television programs about visual arts. While this might be the case, the authors must provide evidence to substantiate this assumption.
A second such assumption is that if 15 percent of people who said that they watch TV programs about visual arts are the same people who increased number of people who really visit museums. The council provides no substantiating evidence for this crucial assumption; lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that residents involving in poll(these 15 percent), have little interest – for whatever reason – in visiting museums , and therefore that the proposed plan is not in their best interests.
Yet another problem with the argument involves the fact that we van not be sure if we can compare results of five years ago poll and results of recent poll.
We don’t know info about residents, sample size, sample age and segment. Thus without reliable demographic projections and detailed information about the polls conducted method, council cannot convince me that the reallocation of funds to TV helps to increase the attendance in museums.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, rather then relying on a dubious analogy between 5 year ago and recent polls, and pointless conclusion that TV visual art programs impact on attendance in museums, the council should provide better evidence – perhaps by way of a museum attending persons survey – to be aware of which motives have visitors, why they decide to attend museum and if they benefit from a new TV programs.
