Hi All,
Please provide your feedback on the essay below -
Argument-
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on the arts:
"In a recent city wide 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 arts museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program 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-
This argument assumes that due to the increase in the city's residents watching visual arts on TV their attendance in the city's art museums has also increased. Based on this the argument further assumes that if the city's public funds towards visual arts on television are cut so will the attendance in their city museums. This conclusion is not well reasoned since the argument fails to consider the points below -
Cutting funds allocated for visual arts on television does not necessarily mean that the city residents will not visit the museums as much. Some people for example may prefer visiting the museums and actually experiencing and learning about art in person than watching it on TV. Some people may also not be habituated to watching TV or visual arts on TV at all.
The argument also assumes that by watching TV residents learn about art and only then visit museums and fails to consider other ways of promoting visual arts like conducting art workshops and auctions and using the reduced funds available to advertise these events on television.
The argument also fails to consider that the increase in museums visits may not be only due to increase in city residents watching visual arts on TV but may also be due to the fact that schools and colleges may encourage such visits to increase knowledge and awareness among their students and that students may not be encouraged to watch TV at all. Therefore, saving the city's funds for visual arts on TV may not be as important as saving these funds for museum visits, workshops and auctions.
Since the argument has failed to consider the possibilities mentioned above , it is not well reasoned and its conclusion of allocating city's funds to public television is not justified.
Please provide your feedback on the essay below -
Argument-
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on the arts:
"In a recent city wide 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 arts museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program 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-
This argument assumes that due to the increase in the city's residents watching visual arts on TV their attendance in the city's art museums has also increased. Based on this the argument further assumes that if the city's public funds towards visual arts on television are cut so will the attendance in their city museums. This conclusion is not well reasoned since the argument fails to consider the points below -
Cutting funds allocated for visual arts on television does not necessarily mean that the city residents will not visit the museums as much. Some people for example may prefer visiting the museums and actually experiencing and learning about art in person than watching it on TV. Some people may also not be habituated to watching TV or visual arts on TV at all.
The argument also assumes that by watching TV residents learn about art and only then visit museums and fails to consider other ways of promoting visual arts like conducting art workshops and auctions and using the reduced funds available to advertise these events on television.
The argument also fails to consider that the increase in museums visits may not be only due to increase in city residents watching visual arts on TV but may also be due to the fact that schools and colleges may encourage such visits to increase knowledge and awareness among their students and that students may not be encouraged to watch TV at all. Therefore, saving the city's funds for visual arts on TV may not be as important as saving these funds for museum visits, workshops and auctions.
Since the argument has failed to consider the possibilities mentioned above , it is not well reasoned and its conclusion of allocating city's funds to public television is not justified.
