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.
The argument stated that watching television programs about the visual arts and visiting museums are highly correlated. Therefore, the author concluded that some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television if the funding which supports public television is being threatened with severe cuts. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
One reason is because the pieces that show on the television are not necessarily will be in the art museums. For example, if the television show contain art pieces that are from Paris and the art museum is located in the United States, it will completely destroy the author's claim which is about the correlation between watching the arts pieces on the television programs and visiting the art museum. Furthermore, as we all know, visual arts piece contain many different form. For instance, television programs show paintings that were from Italy and art museum display statue that were from china. Certainly, the audience of those pieces can be very different and we can't simply group them as a whole.
Second, the argument claims that the city's funds for supporting the arts should be relocated to public television. Again, this claim is very weak because author failed to mention why the corporate funding that supports public television is being threaten with severe cuts. There are many problems which can't be solved by simply adding money and resources. For example, if the population of the city decreases, simply adding fund to television program will not help.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as why the root cause of low funding and what type of arts piece were being displayed and presented in both television programs and art museum. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.
"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.
The argument stated that watching television programs about the visual arts and visiting museums are highly correlated. Therefore, the author concluded that some of the city's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television if the funding which supports public television is being threatened with severe cuts. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
One reason is because the pieces that show on the television are not necessarily will be in the art museums. For example, if the television show contain art pieces that are from Paris and the art museum is located in the United States, it will completely destroy the author's claim which is about the correlation between watching the arts pieces on the television programs and visiting the art museum. Furthermore, as we all know, visual arts piece contain many different form. For instance, television programs show paintings that were from Italy and art museum display statue that were from china. Certainly, the audience of those pieces can be very different and we can't simply group them as a whole.
Second, the argument claims that the city's funds for supporting the arts should be relocated to public television. Again, this claim is very weak because author failed to mention why the corporate funding that supports public television is being threaten with severe cuts. There are many problems which can't be solved by simply adding money and resources. For example, if the population of the city decreases, simply adding fund to television program will not help.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts such as why the root cause of low funding and what type of arts piece were being displayed and presented in both television programs and art museum. Without this information, the argument remains unconvincing and open to debate.
