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."
Response: -
In the preceding statement, the author claims that some part of the city's funds should be allocated to support the public television. In support of his claim, he cites the finding of recent citywide polls and goes on to state that increased viewership of visual arts on public television contributes to the increased attendance at the city's art museum. Also, an expected decrease in the corporate funding that supports the public television should pave way for more allocation of city's fund to support the television. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned statement that is based on questionable premises and assumption.
First, the author relates the increase in the viewership of visual arts on public television to the increase in 'the attendance in city's museum. This relation is not appropriate as the attendance at museum may have increased because of other factors such as more tourists visiting the city in the last 5 years, some antiques having been showcased during the period etc. Author does not provide the sufficient details to make the readers believe the cause and effect relationship. Hence, the flaw in reasoning renders the conclusion unacceptable.
Second, author assumes that the expected decline in the attendance is due to the decrease in the corporate funding that supports the public television and thus a reallocation of city's funds is an appropriate solution. Solution seems doubtful as author fails to explain how the allocated amount will be used and how it will help in increasing the attendance. Therefore, the argument on the basis of the given line of reasoning looks unreasonable.
In sum, the argument is not compelling and convincing as it stands. If it included more data and other empirical evidences to conclusively establish the causality between the increase in viewership of arts program and the increase in the attendance at museum, and explained the ways to boost the attendance by properly defining the line of action, the argument would have been thorough and convincing.
"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."
Response: -
In the preceding statement, the author claims that some part of the city's funds should be allocated to support the public television. In support of his claim, he cites the finding of recent citywide polls and goes on to state that increased viewership of visual arts on public television contributes to the increased attendance at the city's art museum. Also, an expected decrease in the corporate funding that supports the public television should pave way for more allocation of city's fund to support the television. Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned statement that is based on questionable premises and assumption.
First, the author relates the increase in the viewership of visual arts on public television to the increase in 'the attendance in city's museum. This relation is not appropriate as the attendance at museum may have increased because of other factors such as more tourists visiting the city in the last 5 years, some antiques having been showcased during the period etc. Author does not provide the sufficient details to make the readers believe the cause and effect relationship. Hence, the flaw in reasoning renders the conclusion unacceptable.
Second, author assumes that the expected decline in the attendance is due to the decrease in the corporate funding that supports the public television and thus a reallocation of city's funds is an appropriate solution. Solution seems doubtful as author fails to explain how the allocated amount will be used and how it will help in increasing the attendance. Therefore, the argument on the basis of the given line of reasoning looks unreasonable.
In sum, the argument is not compelling and convincing as it stands. If it included more data and other empirical evidences to conclusively establish the causality between the increase in viewership of arts program and the increase in the attendance at museum, and explained the ways to boost the attendance by properly defining the line of action, the argument would have been thorough and convincing.
