In the garden of the art museum are several unique sculptures. To protect these pieces, the museum should install a security that includes infrared motion detectors and video surveillance cameras. A comprehensive security would virtually eliminate the danger that any of these pieces would be stolen.
How persuasive do you find this argument? Explain your point of view by analyzing the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Discuss also what if anything, would make the argument more persuasive or would help you better to evaluate its conclusion.
11-16 – 11 46
Installing a comprehensive security in the garden of art museum is a matter of debate. Although the museum contains several unique sculptures, whether these sculptures are worth spending such a lot of money on surveillance is not clear. Hence I do not find the above argument persuasive. I will present a cost benefit analysis that is lacking in the above argument. This information is necessary in making such a decision. I think that the museum should also consider surveillance systems which might be more effective than infrared motion detectors and video surveillance cameras.
Firstly I would like to start by doing a cost-benefit analysis of installing infrared motion detectors and video surveillance cameras. It is necessary to know the monetary value, or atleast an estimate, of the sculptures in the musuem. Next, one needs to know how many of the sculptures are being stolen by people per month. Is this number a significant one? What would be the cost of installing infrared detectors and what would it cost to maintain video surveillance footage? Without this information it is not possible to make a decision whether to install such a surveillance system.
Apart from a cost-benefit analysis, the museum should also consider other surveillance systems such as may be hiring a guard service? For the garden museum this could be more effective as compared to the monitoring video surveillance. The film, “Entrapment” and “Ocean’s twelve” have shown how people could be trained escape infrared motion detectors. Once again, without considering these alternatives one can not reach a decision whether to install a comprehensive surveillance system.
Thus in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in order to make decision on improving the security system at the garden museum, we would need to know the cost versus benefit, which incorporates the cost of the system maintenance. Secondly one also needs to know other available alternatives of surveillance systems to make a decision as to which systems to employ.
How persuasive do you find this argument? Explain your point of view by analyzing the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. Discuss also what if anything, would make the argument more persuasive or would help you better to evaluate its conclusion.
11-16 – 11 46
Installing a comprehensive security in the garden of art museum is a matter of debate. Although the museum contains several unique sculptures, whether these sculptures are worth spending such a lot of money on surveillance is not clear. Hence I do not find the above argument persuasive. I will present a cost benefit analysis that is lacking in the above argument. This information is necessary in making such a decision. I think that the museum should also consider surveillance systems which might be more effective than infrared motion detectors and video surveillance cameras.
Firstly I would like to start by doing a cost-benefit analysis of installing infrared motion detectors and video surveillance cameras. It is necessary to know the monetary value, or atleast an estimate, of the sculptures in the musuem. Next, one needs to know how many of the sculptures are being stolen by people per month. Is this number a significant one? What would be the cost of installing infrared detectors and what would it cost to maintain video surveillance footage? Without this information it is not possible to make a decision whether to install such a surveillance system.
Apart from a cost-benefit analysis, the museum should also consider other surveillance systems such as may be hiring a guard service? For the garden museum this could be more effective as compared to the monitoring video surveillance. The film, “Entrapment” and “Ocean’s twelve” have shown how people could be trained escape infrared motion detectors. Once again, without considering these alternatives one can not reach a decision whether to install a comprehensive surveillance system.
Thus in conclusion, I would like to reiterate that in order to make decision on improving the security system at the garden museum, we would need to know the cost versus benefit, which incorporates the cost of the system maintenance. Secondly one also needs to know other available alternatives of surveillance systems to make a decision as to which systems to employ.
