GRE Argument Topic 154

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 58, 132, 134 and 136 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

A budget planner from the city of Grandview predicts that the towns’ orchestra will prosper in the coming years even without funding from the city since private contributions and orchestra event attendance have significantly increased. Decisions to eliminate funding are risky since the slightest miscalculation could send the orchestra into debt. The committee that would evaluate the budget planner’s proposal would need to make sure that the assumptions that the prediction rests on are backed by facts and that the author has covered all aspects and key factors at play.

When making his case, the budget planner assumes that the tripling of private contributions and event attendance would provide sufficient revenue for the orchestra. The question that rises to mind in this instance is what percentage of the orchestra’s budgetary needs in the past year was covered by the money garnered from the increase in contributions and attendance. Just because these factors increased, it does not mean that the orchestra has sufficient funding to keep running. If the added revenue only constitutes a small percentage of the running costs, then the measure to cut orchestra funding would be highly detrimental. Even if the reverse were true and the tripling of private contributions and event attendance would cover most of the budgetary needs it would still not be justifiable to stop funding the orchestra. The reason is that the orchestra would still be in debt. However, should the extra money be enough to translate into profit without the city hall contribution, then the budget planner’s prediction would have a greater chance of success, provided the economical conditions remain the same.

The idea that the current tripling of private contributions and event attendance would provide sufficient revenue for the orchestra rests on the assumption that the running costs for the upcoming year would remain fixed or increase just slightly. This begs the question of how much would the orchestra costs increase in the next year and if the current money gained from the tripling of contributions and attendance would be enough to cover it. Prices invariably fluctuate and, most often than not, costs end up increasing. Should the orchestra running costs significantly increase in the upcoming year, then it is highly likely that the current amount of extra money garnered from contributions and attendance would not be sufficient to cover the budgetary needs. In this instance, the author’s recommendation to cut city hall funding would only serve to insure that the orchestra goes into debt. On the other hand, if the prices were to remain the same, or only slightly increase then the idea that the orchestra could support itself would have more merit. However, without a further increase in the orchestra’s revenue, it would still be difficult to say with any degree of certainty that the profits would end up outweighing the costs, if the funding were to be cut.

The budget planner’s optimistic prediction is based on the assumption that either the previous investors will reinvest, or enough new investors would be tempted to spend money on the orchestra. The author should take into account how many of the current investors have expressed a desire to reinvest. It is entirely possible that most of the private investments came from individuals that were interested in making a one-time donation or they were spurred on by external circumstances. If the number of people that want to reinvest is low, then it becomes less likely that the orchestra would be able to support itself without city funding or attracting new investors. Although, with an uneven money distribution, if the small remaining percentage of private investors were also the biggest contributors, then the budget planner’s recommendation would have a bigger chance at succeeding. Should most of the current investors be interested in reinvesting, then it becomes more likely that the orchestra would be able to support itself. Although that statement would still be dependent on the amount of money people would be willing to contribute and the expected profit margins.

Another assumption at the core of the author’s argument is the idea that increased ticket prices guarantee an increase of revenue. However, before making his prediction, the budget planner should bear in mind if the people would be willing to pay the increased ticket prices. It’s possible that an increase in ticket prices can have the opposite of the desired effect and end up chasing people away. If people were to find the higher ticket prices to be too expensive, then the attendance and overall revenue would decrease, so the author’s argument that the orchestra can support itself would be weakened. On the other hand, if people would be more than willing to pay the higher prices and should attendance rates remain unchanged then the budget planner’s prediction would be supported. The extra revenue might prove to be enough to make the orchestra flourish on its own – provided that the running costs don’t rise too dramatically.

When predicting the orchestra’s future well-being based on the existing conditions, the Grandview budget planner assumes that the increased attendance and contributions are not due to any external factors. It then becomes important to establish whether there were no other external factors responsible for the tripling of contributions and attendance. Given that the orchestra attendance rate increased for a specific event, namely the concerts in the park, it is likely that the weather had some influence. Unusually mild temperatures could have encouraged more people to join in outside activities. Regardless of the specifics, if the author were to discover that the increased attendance and contributions were due to external factors then his assumption that levels of attendance and private donations would be maintained in the following year would be severely weakened. On the other hand, should external factors prove to not have had any hand in the past year’s budget increase, then it would become far more likely that the same performance could be repeated in the following year.

Overall, before making his prediction, the budget planner should take into account a multitude of other factors such as the likelihood of the investment and attendance rates continuing in the future and always rapport the increase in revenue to orchestra’s running costs or he would run the risk of sending the orchestra into debt, without the city’s support.

Sample 2:

The budget planner for the city of Grandview argues that the government should eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra in order to evade a budget deficit in the coming year. He supports the argument by citing three facts. The first is that the private contributions to Symphony have increased by 200 percent in the past year. The second fact is that the attendance in the Symphony’s concerts-in-the-park series had doubled in the past year. The last fact presented by the arguer in support of his recommendation is that Symphony has announced an increase in the ticket prices for next year. The arguer utilizes these three facts to conclude that Symphony does not require funding from the government for its success and therefore, the arguer recommends that the government can stop funding Symphony for avoiding a budget deficit in the coming year. A close scrutiny of the argument reveals that the facts presented do little towards supporting the recommendation made.

The first fact presented by the arguer is largely unsubstantiated as it fails to prove that Symphony is now enjoying unquestionable success. The increase in the private contributions in the past year may be for a variety of reasons which may not occur again in the coming future. There may have been some celebrities or prominent figures that were approached by Symphony for donations and these people might have made some contributions to help Symphony establish itself. There is no guarantee that such private contributions will be made in the future also. Moreover, it is likely that the funding being done by the government is encouraging people to make private contributions in order to assist Symphony in achieving success. Therefore, it is likely that once the government withdraws its financial support, the private contributions also stop as the people will get the indication that Symphony has achieved the desired level of success.

Even if we assume that the private contributions will continue after the government withdraws its support, it is not necessary that the contributions being made will be sufficient for Symphony to sustain itself. Furthermore, the arguer does not mention the amount that has been contributed and the difference that it would make to the functioning and success of Symphony. It is likely that the private contributions being made were negligible in the past and the increase by 200 percent in the past year makes little or no difference to the financial support needed by Symphony for its success. Therefore, the first fact provided by the arguer does nothing to substantiate the recommendation made by the arguer.

The second fact is related to the attendance for Symphony’s concerts-in-the-park series. It is likely that this series was conducted in a festive season or was conducted in conjunction with some other popular artists. It is likely that there were some celebrities who were attending or performing in these series and that might explain the increase in attendance. There is no mention of the duration of this series of concerts. It is likely that this series is conducted once in a year and so a high attendance in these concerts may not be able to make a significant difference to the total income earned by Symphony.

The third fact counters the recommendation made, rather than supporting it. If Symphony is planning to increase its ticket prices, then it indicates that Symphony has not been able to sustain itself at the present ticket prices. There is no information pertaining to how the people may react to the increase in ticket prices. If there is a dip in the sale of tickets due to the hike in prices, then the overall effect will be that Symphony will not be able to muster enough financial support for achieving success especially if the government also withdraws its funding.

Even if we assume that the government should withdraw its funding as Symphony is now successful enough, there is no information related to the difference it would make to the budget. It is likely that the amount being provided by the government to Symphony is insignificant when compared with the funds allocated to the city as its annual budget. Therefore, stopping the funding of Symphony may not have the desired effect on the budget deficit. Hence, lack of sufficient evidence has rendered the given argument indefensible in several respects.