Hi there,
Please help in reviewing my essay. Thank you in advance and your help will be much appreciated.
-----------------------------
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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
-----------------------------
The argument concludes that the city councils funds for arts should be reallocated to the public television companies, reasoning that the corporate funding cuts would result in lower attendence at city's art museums. The argument does not take into account several alternate possibilities and makes some unsubstanciated assumptions and therefore is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the assumption readily assumes that the reallocated funds to the public television companies would be used in production of visual arts programs and not other category of television programs. This statement is a stretch. The argument could have been more clearer if it explicitly stated the possible usage of the city's reallocated funds by public television companies.
Secondly, the argument claims that the corporate funding cuts would result in lower attendence at city's art museums. This again is very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the corporate funding available to public television companies and attendence rates at city's art museums. The argument could have provided clear evidence that corporate funding cuts will result in lesser production in the number of visual arts programs by the public television companies, resulting in lower attendence rates at city's art museums.
Finally, if the number of visual arts programs by the public television companies decreases, isn't it likely that private television companies start producing similar programs to fill the void. Clearly, by general law of supply and demand, if there is a demand for a particular product and the supply decreases other competitors will move in to fill the void created by the decrease in supply.
In conclusion, the agrument is flawed and is unconvincing due to the above reasons. It could have been consideraly strengthened had it clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. These unsubstanciated assumptions cause the argument to be open for criticism.
Please help in reviewing my essay. Thank you in advance and your help will be much appreciated.
-----------------------------
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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
-----------------------------
The argument concludes that the city councils funds for arts should be reallocated to the public television companies, reasoning that the corporate funding cuts would result in lower attendence at city's art museums. The argument does not take into account several alternate possibilities and makes some unsubstanciated assumptions and therefore is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the assumption readily assumes that the reallocated funds to the public television companies would be used in production of visual arts programs and not other category of television programs. This statement is a stretch. The argument could have been more clearer if it explicitly stated the possible usage of the city's reallocated funds by public television companies.
Secondly, the argument claims that the corporate funding cuts would result in lower attendence at city's art museums. This again is very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the corporate funding available to public television companies and attendence rates at city's art museums. The argument could have provided clear evidence that corporate funding cuts will result in lesser production in the number of visual arts programs by the public television companies, resulting in lower attendence rates at city's art museums.
Finally, if the number of visual arts programs by the public television companies decreases, isn't it likely that private television companies start producing similar programs to fill the void. Clearly, by general law of supply and demand, if there is a demand for a particular product and the supply decreases other competitors will move in to fill the void created by the decrease in supply.
In conclusion, the agrument is flawed and is unconvincing due to the above reasons. It could have been consideraly strengthened had it clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. These unsubstanciated assumptions cause the argument to be open for criticism.
