-
sunnyjohn
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 344
- Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
- Thanked: 28 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:700
"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 cites that severe cuts in corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program appear, is expected to reduce the attendance at the city's art museums. The author concludes that some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public televisions. On the first sight this seems to be the obvious solution but on a closer look, the author argument is based on questionable premises and assumptions which make it not only flawed but also unconvincing at it stands.
The primary issue with the author's argument lies in her unsubstantiated premises. The author cites that corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program appear, is now being threatened severs cuts. But the author doesn't provide any information on which kind of programs on television will actually be affected. It may possible that funding will be reduced only for non-arts program. For example - funding may be reduced only for sports program. So reduced funding for non-arts programs makes the conclusion, which asks for reallocation of city's funds for arts to public television, illogical. Overall we can say that author's premises, the basis for her argument, lacks any legitimate evidential support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makers several assumptions that remain unproven. One of primary assumption is the correlation between people who watch arts program on television and people who visit museums. The author is making a direct assumptions that if the number of people watching arts program increases, the number of people visiting museums will also increases. Perhaps only those people who don't watch arts program visit arts museums. In this case, if the number of people watching arts program on television decreases, the number of people visiting museums will increases. Similarly other assumptions such as credibility of poll, how well sample participants in poll represent population etc. also lack corroboration. The author makes his argument vulnerable by making weak assumptions and failing to provide the link between the number of people watching arts program and the number of people visiting museums.
While the author does have several key issues in her argument's premises and assumptions, this is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can put her argument more firmly by providing valid evidences which can shed light on how reduced funding will affect the arts program on television. The author can strengthen her position on argument by providing validation of her assumptions. She needs to provide clear connection between people watching arts program on television and people visiting arts museums. After providing the evidences and validating the assumptions, she needs to provide a clear view on how allocation of city's arts funds will solve the problem in hand. Overall there are several key issues presents in author's reasoning, but with more research and clarification, she can improve her argument significantly.
In Sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render her conclusion invalid. She failed to provide necessary evidence and validate unstated assumptions. If the author truly hopes to change the reader's mind on the argument, she would have to largely restructure her argument, fix the flaws in her logic, clearly explicate her assumptions, and provide evidential support. Without these things, her poorly reasoned argument is likely to convinced few people.
In the preceding argument the author cites that severe cuts in corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program appear, is expected to reduce the attendance at the city's art museums. The author concludes that some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public televisions. On the first sight this seems to be the obvious solution but on a closer look, the author argument is based on questionable premises and assumptions which make it not only flawed but also unconvincing at it stands.
The primary issue with the author's argument lies in her unsubstantiated premises. The author cites that corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts program appear, is now being threatened severs cuts. But the author doesn't provide any information on which kind of programs on television will actually be affected. It may possible that funding will be reduced only for non-arts program. For example - funding may be reduced only for sports program. So reduced funding for non-arts programs makes the conclusion, which asks for reallocation of city's funds for arts to public television, illogical. Overall we can say that author's premises, the basis for her argument, lacks any legitimate evidential support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makers several assumptions that remain unproven. One of primary assumption is the correlation between people who watch arts program on television and people who visit museums. The author is making a direct assumptions that if the number of people watching arts program increases, the number of people visiting museums will also increases. Perhaps only those people who don't watch arts program visit arts museums. In this case, if the number of people watching arts program on television decreases, the number of people visiting museums will increases. Similarly other assumptions such as credibility of poll, how well sample participants in poll represent population etc. also lack corroboration. The author makes his argument vulnerable by making weak assumptions and failing to provide the link between the number of people watching arts program and the number of people visiting museums.
While the author does have several key issues in her argument's premises and assumptions, this is not to say that the entire argument is without base. The author can put her argument more firmly by providing valid evidences which can shed light on how reduced funding will affect the arts program on television. The author can strengthen her position on argument by providing validation of her assumptions. She needs to provide clear connection between people watching arts program on television and people visiting arts museums. After providing the evidences and validating the assumptions, she needs to provide a clear view on how allocation of city's arts funds will solve the problem in hand. Overall there are several key issues presents in author's reasoning, but with more research and clarification, she can improve her argument significantly.
In Sum, the author's argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render her conclusion invalid. She failed to provide necessary evidence and validate unstated assumptions. If the author truly hopes to change the reader's mind on the argument, she would have to largely restructure her argument, fix the flaws in her logic, clearly explicate her assumptions, and provide evidential support. Without these things, her poorly reasoned argument is likely to convinced few people.
