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.
Analysis:
In the argument above the city council of a large city states that some part of the financial resources currently available for the support of the arts needs to be distributed to public television in order to prevent a decline in attendance at the city's art museums. However, this argument is flawed for various key reasons. The council makes the unstated assumption that a higher number of residents watching visual arts on TV leads to more visitors to the arts museums without giving a proof for this causality. Furthermore, the proportion to which public television is funded by companies is not specified. And finally, the council does not take into account possible negative effects caused by the reallocation of the city's funds.
First, the argument implies that the number of people visiting the arts museums depends on the number of people watching visual arts program, because both figures increased at the same speed. However, there is no proof for this relationship. In fact, there is no reason why the number of visitors cannot be affected by other sources. It could also be the case that the number of visitors influences the the number of watchers. Without further explanation of this relationship this part is merely a weak strengthener of the argument.
Second, the council does not state the amount of corporate funds supporting public television in relation to other sources of finance. As a result it is impossible to determine whether a cut in this fundings considerably hurts public television and, therefore, decreases the attendance to the museums.
Last but not least, the council fails to take into consideration the potential negative effects of the shift of financial resources on the museums. If, for example, the cause-effect-relationship described in point one above proves to be wrong, reallocating funds to public television would have no effect on the number of museum visitors, whereas the museums themselves may suffer from lower financial support, limiting their ability to attract visitors.
Because the argument fails to provide support for its assumptions and lacks crucial information it is not sound and persuasive. Giving more information about the relationship between visual arts program watchers and museum visitors, the finance structure of public television and the potential effects of funds reallocation would considerably strengthen the argument. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
"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.
Analysis:
In the argument above the city council of a large city states that some part of the financial resources currently available for the support of the arts needs to be distributed to public television in order to prevent a decline in attendance at the city's art museums. However, this argument is flawed for various key reasons. The council makes the unstated assumption that a higher number of residents watching visual arts on TV leads to more visitors to the arts museums without giving a proof for this causality. Furthermore, the proportion to which public television is funded by companies is not specified. And finally, the council does not take into account possible negative effects caused by the reallocation of the city's funds.
First, the argument implies that the number of people visiting the arts museums depends on the number of people watching visual arts program, because both figures increased at the same speed. However, there is no proof for this relationship. In fact, there is no reason why the number of visitors cannot be affected by other sources. It could also be the case that the number of visitors influences the the number of watchers. Without further explanation of this relationship this part is merely a weak strengthener of the argument.
Second, the council does not state the amount of corporate funds supporting public television in relation to other sources of finance. As a result it is impossible to determine whether a cut in this fundings considerably hurts public television and, therefore, decreases the attendance to the museums.
Last but not least, the council fails to take into consideration the potential negative effects of the shift of financial resources on the museums. If, for example, the cause-effect-relationship described in point one above proves to be wrong, reallocating funds to public television would have no effect on the number of museum visitors, whereas the museums themselves may suffer from lower financial support, limiting their ability to attract visitors.
Because the argument fails to provide support for its assumptions and lacks crucial information it is not sound and persuasive. Giving more information about the relationship between visual arts program watchers and museum visitors, the finance structure of public television and the potential effects of funds reallocation would considerably strengthen the argument. As it stands, however, the argument is flawed for the reasons indicated.
