-
abhi84v
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:56 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Thanked: 7 times
- GMAT Score:770
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.
Television, a medium with a potentially far-reaching audience, provides an ideal platform for generating awareness and hence appreciation of the visual arts among the common public. Visual arts have always had a significant impact on the society, more so in the modern world. In the preceding statement, the report asserts that in view of imminent cuts in corporate funding for public television, a fall in attendance at the city's art museum is expected. The report recommends a reallocation of funds set aside for supporting the arts to be spent on public television to avoid the aforesaid situation. Though this claim may have some standing, on the basis of the offered premises which lack several unstated assumptions, the validity of the argument is called into question.
One of the issues with the argument lies in the unsubstantiated premises. It states the results of a citywide poll which mentions that fifteen percent more residents watch television programs about the visual arts compared to those interviewed in a similar poll five years ago. Whether the citywide poll is representative of the city population has not been mentioned in the argument provided. It could well be that the poll considers an insufficient representation of the actual city demographics. In addition, it mentions a possibility of severe cuts in corporate funding to the public television system. The credibility of the threat has not been explored and yet it has been inferred that there will be a drop in attendance at the art museums.
The more serious issue however is the number of unproven assumptions. The citywide poll mentions a certain percentage of residents who watch television programs about the visual arts and correlates this with a similar percentage rise in people visiting the city's art museums. These people who visit the museums may not be the same people who watch the programs on television. In fact the people who watch the programs on television may decide not to attend the museums as they watch programs offering the same content anyway. Also, the people visiting the museums may actually be visitors to the city rather than city residents who were respondents to the poll. Hence, attributing the programs on television to an increase in visitors to the art museum may be misleading. Another flaw in reasoning is that there is no mention as to whether the said programs are broadcast on public television. If this is not the case already, the reduced expenditure to public television will not affect the number of visitors to the museums assuming that the correlation mentioned previously does hold true.
Although the argument does have several gaps with regards to the premises and assumptions mentioned above, it is not entirely without base. Mentioning that the citywide poll is indeed representative of the city's general population and that the looming threat is credible goes some way towards strengthening the argument. Further, the several assumptions stated above can be accordingly addressed. A confirmation of the fact that a large proportion of the people who admitted to watching these programs on television in fact contributed to the rise in art museum viewership would further assist the argument. Finally if these programs are only broadcast on public television, then the argument appears a lot more logical and reasonable.
In light of these facts, the argument, based on unsupported premises without the assumptions provided, does not render a valid conclusion. In order to make the argument more compelling, the author needs to largely restructure the argument, fix the flaws in logic, explicate the assumptions and provide more evidentiary support.
I have used bits of myohmy's template btw.
"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.
Television, a medium with a potentially far-reaching audience, provides an ideal platform for generating awareness and hence appreciation of the visual arts among the common public. Visual arts have always had a significant impact on the society, more so in the modern world. In the preceding statement, the report asserts that in view of imminent cuts in corporate funding for public television, a fall in attendance at the city's art museum is expected. The report recommends a reallocation of funds set aside for supporting the arts to be spent on public television to avoid the aforesaid situation. Though this claim may have some standing, on the basis of the offered premises which lack several unstated assumptions, the validity of the argument is called into question.
One of the issues with the argument lies in the unsubstantiated premises. It states the results of a citywide poll which mentions that fifteen percent more residents watch television programs about the visual arts compared to those interviewed in a similar poll five years ago. Whether the citywide poll is representative of the city population has not been mentioned in the argument provided. It could well be that the poll considers an insufficient representation of the actual city demographics. In addition, it mentions a possibility of severe cuts in corporate funding to the public television system. The credibility of the threat has not been explored and yet it has been inferred that there will be a drop in attendance at the art museums.
The more serious issue however is the number of unproven assumptions. The citywide poll mentions a certain percentage of residents who watch television programs about the visual arts and correlates this with a similar percentage rise in people visiting the city's art museums. These people who visit the museums may not be the same people who watch the programs on television. In fact the people who watch the programs on television may decide not to attend the museums as they watch programs offering the same content anyway. Also, the people visiting the museums may actually be visitors to the city rather than city residents who were respondents to the poll. Hence, attributing the programs on television to an increase in visitors to the art museum may be misleading. Another flaw in reasoning is that there is no mention as to whether the said programs are broadcast on public television. If this is not the case already, the reduced expenditure to public television will not affect the number of visitors to the museums assuming that the correlation mentioned previously does hold true.
Although the argument does have several gaps with regards to the premises and assumptions mentioned above, it is not entirely without base. Mentioning that the citywide poll is indeed representative of the city's general population and that the looming threat is credible goes some way towards strengthening the argument. Further, the several assumptions stated above can be accordingly addressed. A confirmation of the fact that a large proportion of the people who admitted to watching these programs on television in fact contributed to the rise in art museum viewership would further assist the argument. Finally if these programs are only broadcast on public television, then the argument appears a lot more logical and reasonable.
In light of these facts, the argument, based on unsupported premises without the assumptions provided, does not render a valid conclusion. In order to make the argument more compelling, the author needs to largely restructure the argument, fix the flaws in logic, explicate the assumptions and provide more evidentiary support.
I have used bits of myohmy's template btw.
)
