|
|
Sample Response to GMAT AWA Argument Questions
3.
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 author concludes that the city should allocate some of its arts
funding to the public television in order for the attendance at the city
art museums not to further decrease. The argument is based on the two
assumptions: 1) the number of audience of art programs on public
television is appropriate to that of local art museums, and 2) the
public television faced of severe funding cuts. While this argument is
somewhat convincing, it is not sound because its line of reasoning is
not compelling.
First of all, the author commits the “Confused Cause and Effect”
fallacy. The argument depends on the assumption that increased exposure
to the visual arts on public television has caused a similar increase in
local art-museum attendance in the past years. However, the poll that
increased art-museum attendance is statistically correlated with similar
increases in television viewing of visual-arts programs, does not
necessarily mean that the increased television viewing of arts is the
cause of the rise in museum attendance. There may be other factors
relevant to increased interest in the local art museum during the past
years. For example, some larger social or cultural factors may cause
greater public interest in municipal art museums.
Second, the argument does not address the effectiveness of citywide poll
conducted five years ago. The survey may be biased. If the respondents
do not properly represent the whole residents, then the poll is not
convincing. Moreover, since the survey was conducted five years ago, the
statistics can become invalid and can no longer be used as future
prediction.
In conclusion, the argument is not convincing enough and would be
strengthened if the author were to eliminate other significant factors
that might have caused the increase in visits to the local art museum,
as well as to address the soundness o the survey conducted five years
ago. |
