• Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • The Princeton Review
    FREE GMAT Exam
    Know how you'd score today for $0

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    The Princeton Review
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh

Rate my second AWA Essay

This topic has 0 member replies

Rate my AWA Essay

1-3.5
 
0% (0 votes)
4
 
0% (0 votes)
5
 
0% (0 votes)
6
 
0% (0 votes)
kewldudeer Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
14 Aug 2016
Posted:
7 messages

Rate my second AWA Essay

Post Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:53 pm
The argument claims that city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. This claim is since there has been 15 percent increase in watching television about visual arts and number of people visiting city’s art museum in past five years.

Stated in this way, the argument manipulates the fact and presents a distorted view of situation. It reveals example of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology.
The argument fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated.

First the argument readily assumes that the citywide poll is true representation of population. This statement is stretch as we do not have any information about the sample size of poll. Only one information is available about poll which states that the poll was citywide, but it does not state what was the sample size. For example, the poll may have been citywide but the number of person responding in different areas of city could have differed. One more aspect which is open to debate is that it compares the respondents increase with poll conducted five years. But the argument does not provide any information about the respondents five years ago. Whether the respondent of last poll and this poll are same or entirely different. Clearly the argument’s assumption of the poll to be true representative of entire population is open to be debate. The argument would have been much more assertive if it had given more information about the poll conducted this time and five years ago.

Secondly the argument claims that decrease in corporate funding for public television will lead to decrease in attendance at city’s art museum. This again is rather weak and unsupported in argument as it does not provide any evidence to support the correlation between decrease in corporate funding and attendance at city’s art museum. To illustrate this the author has not given any evidence or fact to support this claim. While there has been increase in the percentage of number of respondent watching television about art and attending art museum in last five years but there is no evidence to support the correlation between decline in corporate funding and decrease in attendance at art museum.

Finally, the argument does not give any answer to the following question:
1. Number of respondent in poll this year has increased or decreased in comparison to poll five years ago?
2. How is the funding of public television related to attendance at art museum?

Without convincing answers to above question, one is left to assume that the argument is more of wishful thinking than substantive thinking.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The argument could have strengthened considerably, if the author had mentioned all the relevant facts about the poll.
To ascertain merits/demerits of situation, it is pertinent to have complete knowledge about all contributing factors. However, we do not have any information about how one event could lead to other.
Without above information, argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

Top First Responders*

1 GMATGuruNY 67 first replies
2 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 44 first replies
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow 40 first replies
4 Jay@ManhattanReview 25 first replies
5 Terry@ThePrinceto... 10 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

Most Active Experts

1 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

132 posts
2 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

112 posts
3 image description Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

95 posts
4 image description Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

92 posts
5 image description Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

91 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts