-
Nidhi_Singh
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:04 am
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on the arts.
"In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the increase in the number of people watching television programs about visual arts is linked with the number of people visiting city's art museums. Hence, some of the city's funds for supporting arts should be reallocated to public television if the government wants to keep the attendance at city's museums constant. However, the author's argument may well have merit, but it is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence provided by the author, the conclusion cannot be rendered valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is his unsubstantiated premises. The premise that 15% more residents responded to the poll as was conducted 5 years ago is loosely based. There is no evidence to why the 15% more residents responded positive to the poll. Also, the author links the number of people visiting arts museum to the number of people watching TV programs about visual arts without providing any substantial evidence to prove the same. Another loose premise is that the reallocation of funds to public television would keep the attendance at city's museum constant. The author provides no legitimate evidentiary support for the mentioned premises, and renders his argument invalid.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions which remain unproven in his claim. The author assumes that the increase in the percentage of people responding positively to the poll conducted implies that the number of people has also increased. The author does not take into consideration the present population of city and the population 5 years ago. Another assumption the author makes is that because the corporate funding to public television is being threatened, this will have a negative impact on the people visiting the museum as well. The number of visits to a museum may rise if people don't get to watch visual arts on television. So if this assumption falters, the whole argument falls apart.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumption, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. If the author provides additional information about the population of the city 5 years ago and at present, then the conclusion can be supported. Also, if the author provides information about the trend of visits made to the museum irrespective of the viewership of public television, the conclusion may fall in place.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
A detailed explanation of the mistakes made would be appreciated. Thanks !
"In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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."
In the preceding argument, the author claims that the increase in the number of people watching television programs about visual arts is linked with the number of people visiting city's art museums. Hence, some of the city's funds for supporting arts should be reallocated to public television if the government wants to keep the attendance at city's museums constant. However, the author's argument may well have merit, but it is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence provided by the author, the conclusion cannot be rendered valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning is his unsubstantiated premises. The premise that 15% more residents responded to the poll as was conducted 5 years ago is loosely based. There is no evidence to why the 15% more residents responded positive to the poll. Also, the author links the number of people visiting arts museum to the number of people watching TV programs about visual arts without providing any substantial evidence to prove the same. Another loose premise is that the reallocation of funds to public television would keep the attendance at city's museum constant. The author provides no legitimate evidentiary support for the mentioned premises, and renders his argument invalid.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions which remain unproven in his claim. The author assumes that the increase in the percentage of people responding positively to the poll conducted implies that the number of people has also increased. The author does not take into consideration the present population of city and the population 5 years ago. Another assumption the author makes is that because the corporate funding to public television is being threatened, this will have a negative impact on the people visiting the museum as well. The number of visits to a museum may rise if people don't get to watch visual arts on television. So if this assumption falters, the whole argument falls apart.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumption, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. If the author provides additional information about the population of the city 5 years ago and at present, then the conclusion can be supported. Also, if the author provides information about the trend of visits made to the museum irrespective of the viewership of public television, the conclusion may fall in place.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
A detailed explanation of the mistakes made would be appreciated. Thanks !
