took 3 mins more than the usual and didn't check to improve performance in one writing.
Argument:
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."
Analysis:
The author assumes in the argument that a poll conducted five years ago of people watching television programs of visual arts is a fact which is not true as a poll is an estimation of information collected. Furthermore, this fact has lead to increase in no. of people visiting art museums. The author is establishing a link between television and art museums and he suggests that some fund's for arts should be used for public television. The author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. According to the author, people watching visual arts on the television, motivates them to visit the art museums which is not true. Also, 15 percent more residents do not provides complete information as for what is the total no. of residents. The author considers television to be responsible for increasing the no. of people visiting art museums. Moreover, the author relates to funding by corporate as the reason for people being not interested in visiting art museums anymore. The authors premise, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support, and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, information from poll conducted 5 years ago will be different from current situation. Secondly, television plays a vital role in people visiting art museums. Thirdly, if the corporate funding stops for television then people will stop watching visual arts which will lead to decrease in number of people visiting art museum. Fourthly, by relocating funds which are used for art for television will again increase the number of people visiting musem. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide explication of links between people watching television and visiting the museums he assumes exists.
In sum, the reason provided by author for the television to be playing an important role for people to decide on visiting the museum is not valid. Also, corporate funding of arts to be used in television will not necessarily lead to increase in number of people visiting museums. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
Argument:
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."
Analysis:
The author assumes in the argument that a poll conducted five years ago of people watching television programs of visual arts is a fact which is not true as a poll is an estimation of information collected. Furthermore, this fact has lead to increase in no. of people visiting art museums. The author is establishing a link between television and art museums and he suggests that some fund's for arts should be used for public television. The author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue in authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. According to the author, people watching visual arts on the television, motivates them to visit the art museums which is not true. Also, 15 percent more residents do not provides complete information as for what is the total no. of residents. The author considers television to be responsible for increasing the no. of people visiting art museums. Moreover, the author relates to funding by corporate as the reason for people being not interested in visiting art museums anymore. The authors premise, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support, and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, information from poll conducted 5 years ago will be different from current situation. Secondly, television plays a vital role in people visiting art museums. Thirdly, if the corporate funding stops for television then people will stop watching visual arts which will lead to decrease in number of people visiting art museum. Fourthly, by relocating funds which are used for art for television will again increase the number of people visiting musem. The author weakens his argument by failing to provide explication of links between people watching television and visiting the museums he assumes exists.
In sum, the reason provided by author for the television to be playing an important role for people to decide on visiting the museum is not valid. Also, corporate funding of arts to be used in television will not necessarily lead to increase in number of people visiting museums. If the author truly hopes to change his readers mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
