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 watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the numbers of people visiting our city’s art museum has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appeared, is now threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s art museum will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television.’
On the surface seems to be that reallocating city’s arts funds to public television could be a good choice in order to keep citizens interest in arts. However, in the argument stated above the author made a couple assumptions that may weaken his reasoning.
Firstly, he assumes that cuts in the public television funding will affect visual arts programs funding. It is possible that these cuts are for other kind of programs such as sports, news or entertainment. The city council may have considered that since the city’s art interest has increased in last five years they should no reduce the funding for it in order to keep or increase that interest. Moreover, if they keep that interest, people will continue visiting museums and paying the ticket. Thus the city will still receive extra money for its total budget.
And secondly, the author assumes or expects that a possible reduction of art programs may decline the interest on arts. And this is not supported with any evidence. Nevertheless, if citizenship is fond of arts they will still continue visiting museums because it will became the only way for them to enjoy art. Actually, museum visitors may increase in the following years.
Even though, the argument can also be strengthened. This can be done if in the argument was said that most of the people who were interested in arts had their first contact with it by public television programs. And they only visit museums because of the contents they have previously saw in those programs. Therefore, they will not longer visit museums since they don’t find any interesting content showed in television before.
To sum up, the argument by itself is not strong enough to get to the conclusion that the city council should reallocate funds from art to public television because it is not clear why people visit museums and there is no evidence of a decline of interest in arts and museum visits if they reduce art programs.
‘In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the numbers of people visiting our city’s art museum has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appeared, is now threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s art museum will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television.’
On the surface seems to be that reallocating city’s arts funds to public television could be a good choice in order to keep citizens interest in arts. However, in the argument stated above the author made a couple assumptions that may weaken his reasoning.
Firstly, he assumes that cuts in the public television funding will affect visual arts programs funding. It is possible that these cuts are for other kind of programs such as sports, news or entertainment. The city council may have considered that since the city’s art interest has increased in last five years they should no reduce the funding for it in order to keep or increase that interest. Moreover, if they keep that interest, people will continue visiting museums and paying the ticket. Thus the city will still receive extra money for its total budget.
And secondly, the author assumes or expects that a possible reduction of art programs may decline the interest on arts. And this is not supported with any evidence. Nevertheless, if citizenship is fond of arts they will still continue visiting museums because it will became the only way for them to enjoy art. Actually, museum visitors may increase in the following years.
Even though, the argument can also be strengthened. This can be done if in the argument was said that most of the people who were interested in arts had their first contact with it by public television programs. And they only visit museums because of the contents they have previously saw in those programs. Therefore, they will not longer visit museums since they don’t find any interesting content showed in television before.
To sum up, the argument by itself is not strong enough to get to the conclusion that the city council should reallocate funds from art to public television because it is not clear why people visit museums and there is no evidence of a decline of interest in arts and museum visits if they reduce art programs.
