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.”
The council is assuming that TV Programs on visual arts have inspired people to visit museums, and He gives a specific example on this, and finally concludes that they should spend some funds dedicated for visual arts on public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear. In my opinion the argument is not convincing. Below paragraphs shed light on my point of view.
First, the council is assuming that 15 percent increase in museums visitors is because of visual arts program shown on public TV. Author is giving example of a survey where 15% residents said that they watch TV programs about the visual arts and then during the same period visitors to museums increased by 15%. This assumption needs more evidence, as it is very much possible that increase in museum's visitors is because of some other reason, may be museums have displayed more interesting items, may be during last 5 years, government made a plan to attract international visitors/tourists etc.
Second, the council is suggesting that as corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear is now being threatened with severe cuts, so some of City's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public TV, as author thinks that if this is not done, visitors to museums will decrease. But assumptions can be altogether different. It is possible that increase in people who watch television programs about the visual arts is because the people visited museums first and then developed interest in visual arts. So if this is true then argument is very seriously weakened and any financial help to public TV will not have any effect on museum visitors.
Third, council’s assumes that if corporate funds to public television are reduced public television will in turn reduce funds for visual arts program, or it will stop showing visual arts programs. Council’s assumption need more evidence, as it is very much possible that even corporate funding for public TV is reduced; TV will not cut on visual arts programs. It may reduce air time for any other type of programs like Drama, History or sports.
In conclusion, argument by City's council on the arts is not convincing. They should provide more evidence that increase in museums visitors is only because of visual arts programs aired on TV in last 5 years, if they want to strengthen the argument. They also need to clarify that have TV programs increased the visitors to museums or visit to museums have increase people's interest in TV programs about visual arts. Also more details on pattern of corporate funds utilization by public TV can clarify the situation.
“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.”
The council is assuming that TV Programs on visual arts have inspired people to visit museums, and He gives a specific example on this, and finally concludes that they should spend some funds dedicated for visual arts on public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear. In my opinion the argument is not convincing. Below paragraphs shed light on my point of view.
First, the council is assuming that 15 percent increase in museums visitors is because of visual arts program shown on public TV. Author is giving example of a survey where 15% residents said that they watch TV programs about the visual arts and then during the same period visitors to museums increased by 15%. This assumption needs more evidence, as it is very much possible that increase in museum's visitors is because of some other reason, may be museums have displayed more interesting items, may be during last 5 years, government made a plan to attract international visitors/tourists etc.
Second, the council is suggesting that as corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear is now being threatened with severe cuts, so some of City's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public TV, as author thinks that if this is not done, visitors to museums will decrease. But assumptions can be altogether different. It is possible that increase in people who watch television programs about the visual arts is because the people visited museums first and then developed interest in visual arts. So if this is true then argument is very seriously weakened and any financial help to public TV will not have any effect on museum visitors.
Third, council’s assumes that if corporate funds to public television are reduced public television will in turn reduce funds for visual arts program, or it will stop showing visual arts programs. Council’s assumption need more evidence, as it is very much possible that even corporate funding for public TV is reduced; TV will not cut on visual arts programs. It may reduce air time for any other type of programs like Drama, History or sports.
In conclusion, argument by City's council on the arts is not convincing. They should provide more evidence that increase in museums visitors is only because of visual arts programs aired on TV in last 5 years, if they want to strengthen the argument. They also need to clarify that have TV programs increased the visitors to museums or visit to museums have increase people's interest in TV programs about visual arts. Also more details on pattern of corporate funds utilization by public TV can clarify the situation.