Argument
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
Television broadcasting is a great source that helps Government or any other media while propagating a message to the intended forum. Over the night a product reaches to a success by the virtue of television broadcasting, children starts taking education on serious note due to television campaign. Nowadays Government is using this medium to generate more revenue , for instance it start promoting a museum and any other historic over television and when people start going there, it impose entry fees, hence more revenue. Public televisions are supported by mainly corporate funding.
In the preceding statement, author claims that "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". Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we can not accept his argument valid
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author fails to provide the significant details on poll like who was the audience (may be same interest audience), what was asked in the poll (may be biased or unclear message), moreover the medium by which poll was conducted is not clear, chances are poll medium is accessed by limited group. Author also fails to define the increase % parameter, may be art museum attendees are not subset of public television viewers. Increase % is just because of some other influential parameters like either museum made entry free instead of $2 per head earlier or museum improved its amenities.
The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Author assumes corporate funding cut would impact public television that further impact attendance at art city museums, while he fails to provide the correlation between art museum attendance and art programs at television. Moreover it is not clear art program and museum has some link or what is there in art program that inspires people to visit museum. Additionally author fail to explain why the decrease would happen, if television is not hosting art program anymore then we would not have increase in art museum on incremental basis, however there is no logical reasoning given by author on % decrease on current attendance.
Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author can strengthen his argument by providing more detailed information on survey like who has done, who all participated, what all the poll parameters. Additionally assumption can also be supported by providing linkage between art program viewers and city art museum attendees, what all other efforts done in last five years to increase attendance in city art museum. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present with research and clarification, he could have improved his argument and assumption significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported argument and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid, if the author truly hopes to change reader's mind he would have to largely restructure his argument by providing more detail, fix the flaw in his logic ,clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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
Television broadcasting is a great source that helps Government or any other media while propagating a message to the intended forum. Over the night a product reaches to a success by the virtue of television broadcasting, children starts taking education on serious note due to television campaign. Nowadays Government is using this medium to generate more revenue , for instance it start promoting a museum and any other historic over television and when people start going there, it impose entry fees, hence more revenue. Public televisions are supported by mainly corporate funding.
In the preceding statement, author claims that "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". Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers; we can not accept his argument valid
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. Author fails to provide the significant details on poll like who was the audience (may be same interest audience), what was asked in the poll (may be biased or unclear message), moreover the medium by which poll was conducted is not clear, chances are poll medium is accessed by limited group. Author also fails to define the increase % parameter, may be art museum attendees are not subset of public television viewers. Increase % is just because of some other influential parameters like either museum made entry free instead of $2 per head earlier or museum improved its amenities.
The author's premises, the basis of his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Author assumes corporate funding cut would impact public television that further impact attendance at art city museums, while he fails to provide the correlation between art museum attendance and art programs at television. Moreover it is not clear art program and museum has some link or what is there in art program that inspires people to visit museum. Additionally author fail to explain why the decrease would happen, if television is not hosting art program anymore then we would not have increase in art museum on incremental basis, however there is no logical reasoning given by author on % decrease on current attendance.
Though there are several issues with author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. Author can strengthen his argument by providing more detailed information on survey like who has done, who all participated, what all the poll parameters. Additionally assumption can also be supported by providing linkage between art program viewers and city art museum attendees, what all other efforts done in last five years to increase attendance in city art museum. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present with research and clarification, he could have improved his argument and assumption significantly.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported argument and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid, if the author truly hopes to change reader's mind he would have to largely restructure his argument by providing more detail, fix the flaw in his logic ,clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
