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.
The council concludes that it should divert some funding to public television otherwise attendance at its museum will decrease. The author’s line of reasoning is that if people keep watching visual arts programs on the television then the attendance at the local art museums will not decrease. The argument is unconvincing in many ways.
First, the author assumes that there is correlation between the people who watch TV and the people who visit art museums. However, author provides no evidence to support that claim. For example, it may be possible that only the people who are not happy with the visual TV arts problem come to museums. If that is the case then council will be diverting the funding to TV for nothing.
Second, author fails to consider that TV programmes funding cut may be beneficial for the museums. For example, if people who are really interested in arts can’t see those programs on the TV then they will to go to museums to see the art and that in turn will increase museums revenue.
Finally, author fails to consider the other consequence of his action. If arts funding is diverted to the TV, then it means there will be less funding available for city’s arts activities, including funding for the art museums. This may in turn reduce the quality of service and the quality of work of art at the museums, resulting in dissatisfaction among museums visitors. All this will lead to reduced no of visitors to the art museums. In short, this move can back fire.
In sum, to convince me that diverting funding to TV will not decrease the attendance at the museums, the author would have to provide me evidence that, the viewers of visual arts programs on TV are the ones who come to visit museums and that the diverting the funding to TV will not affect the services at museums. Additionally, author has to provide me the evidence that by diverting the funding to TV they are helping their competitor, TV station. Without this additional information, I am not convinced that diverting the funding to TV will help the attendance at the art museums.
“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.
The council concludes that it should divert some funding to public television otherwise attendance at its museum will decrease. The author’s line of reasoning is that if people keep watching visual arts programs on the television then the attendance at the local art museums will not decrease. The argument is unconvincing in many ways.
First, the author assumes that there is correlation between the people who watch TV and the people who visit art museums. However, author provides no evidence to support that claim. For example, it may be possible that only the people who are not happy with the visual TV arts problem come to museums. If that is the case then council will be diverting the funding to TV for nothing.
Second, author fails to consider that TV programmes funding cut may be beneficial for the museums. For example, if people who are really interested in arts can’t see those programs on the TV then they will to go to museums to see the art and that in turn will increase museums revenue.
Finally, author fails to consider the other consequence of his action. If arts funding is diverted to the TV, then it means there will be less funding available for city’s arts activities, including funding for the art museums. This may in turn reduce the quality of service and the quality of work of art at the museums, resulting in dissatisfaction among museums visitors. All this will lead to reduced no of visitors to the art museums. In short, this move can back fire.
In sum, to convince me that diverting funding to TV will not decrease the attendance at the museums, the author would have to provide me evidence that, the viewers of visual arts programs on TV are the ones who come to visit museums and that the diverting the funding to TV will not affect the services at museums. Additionally, author has to provide me the evidence that by diverting the funding to TV they are helping their competitor, TV station. Without this additional information, I am not convinced that diverting the funding to TV will help the attendance at the art museums.
