GMAT Essays (AWA)

Please rate my first analysis of Argument essay. Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

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 reallocated to public television."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.


The large city's council argument that the severe cuts in corporate funding that supports public television where most of the visual arts programs appear will affect the attendance in city's art museum and that is why some of the funds should be relocated, is seriously flawed and presents poorly reasoned argument. Based solely on the author's premise, we cannot accept this argument as valid.

Firstly, author relates increase in television viewership with increased attendance in city's art museum. Increase in city's art museum could be because of number of other reasons such as introduction of a new exhibit, art's fair, etc. Thus, we can not consider increased attendance in city's museum a result of increased viewership of television programs related to visual art. Therefore, author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack appropriate evidence.

Secondly, author says that there has been 15% increase in viewership of television programs related to visual arts. However, this number could be misleading. Increase in viewership could be a result of overall decrease in number of residents with number of residents who watch art programs staying the same. Therefore, percentage increase can not be a true measure here unless more information is provided.

Thirdly, author assumes that preventing cuts in corporate funding that supports public television where most of the visual arts programs appear will have an impact on television viewership. It is possible that the cuts will be applied to the television programs which are not popular among people and have least viewership, and in absence of these programs people have other alternative art related programs to watch. In this case, cuts in corporate funding will have minimal or no impact on television viewership.

Finally, it can be concluded that although author has provided some evidences to support his argument, the argument is based on unsupported premises and assumptions. Adding key information and plugging-in assumption with factual data will strengthen author's argument. The conclusion based solely on author's premises is unacceptable.