Aug 25, 2014
Time Taken : 60 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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 arts museums has increased by similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city's museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city's funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television.
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the argument, the author concludes that some factor of the city's funds used in supporting the city's art museums should be reallocated to the public television because latter allegedly is being threatened to receive severe corporate fund cuts that in turn, as per author's opinion - if happened, will have a negative effect on the former's attendance.
He basis his conclusion on insufficient facts such as the:
- The result of city's recent conducted city wide poll that concluded an increase of 15 % more residents watching the television programs about the visual arts from the poll that was conducted 5 years ago
- The similar increase in the number of people visiting the city's art museums during the same last 5 years.
The author assumes a certain aspects. His assumptions are flawed. A few include :
He primarily assumes that it is the visual art programs running on the public television that has inspired people to visit the city's art museums. He presumes that the residents residing in the city 5 years ago when the poll was then conducted are the same as now when again it was conducted recently. He pre-supposes that the 15 % of the more residents visiting the city's art museums are the same as the ones who voted, on the recent city's poll, to watch the visual art programs on public television. Another pre-supposition by the author is that 15 % more residents that voted to watch the visual art programs is out of their pure interests in such programs. Additionally, the author assumes that if the corporate funding to the public television goes down then so will the attendance to the city's art museums too. Lastly, his presumption is that if the city's funds for the art museum are reallocated to the public television then the attendance to the art museums will too decrease.
The argument would have been justified in case it had provided any support that it is the visual art programs running on the public television that has inspired the people to visit the city's art museums. The argument would have a stronger base if it had provided any proof or evidence as a stand or a reference point that the residents residing 5 years ago are the same as now among which the poll was conducted. Also the argument lacks a proof whether the 15% of the more residents visiting the city's art museums are the same as those who voted to watch the visual arts program on the television on the recent city's conducted poll. Furthermore, no proof has been provided that the residents who voted for the visual art programs actually watched those programs out of pure interest as it could also be the case that the rest programs were boring ultimately giving only the visual art programs as a last resort program option. Additionally, it is baseless to state that if the corporate funds used for public television are cut down then the attendance to the city's art museums will decrease as then the latter will only be the one single source of art information for the residents thereby, perhaps, causing an increase in the attendance too.
The author's argument would have been better constructed incase some potential queries were addressed. A few include :
- Whether the poll conducted was among the same residents before and after the given 5 years in question ?
- Whether the 15% more residents watching the visual art programs were the same as the ones (similar percentage) going to the city's art museums.
- Whether the residents who watched the visual art programs actually chose to watch those programs out of their pure interest for art.
- The reason why the corporate funds used for public television were threatened to receive severe cuts.
Thus, based on reasons cited above the argument in its current form is ill-constructed and flawed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Taken : 60 minutes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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 arts museums has increased by similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city's museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city's funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television.
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the argument, the author concludes that some factor of the city's funds used in supporting the city's art museums should be reallocated to the public television because latter allegedly is being threatened to receive severe corporate fund cuts that in turn, as per author's opinion - if happened, will have a negative effect on the former's attendance.
He basis his conclusion on insufficient facts such as the:
- The result of city's recent conducted city wide poll that concluded an increase of 15 % more residents watching the television programs about the visual arts from the poll that was conducted 5 years ago
- The similar increase in the number of people visiting the city's art museums during the same last 5 years.
The author assumes a certain aspects. His assumptions are flawed. A few include :
He primarily assumes that it is the visual art programs running on the public television that has inspired people to visit the city's art museums. He presumes that the residents residing in the city 5 years ago when the poll was then conducted are the same as now when again it was conducted recently. He pre-supposes that the 15 % of the more residents visiting the city's art museums are the same as the ones who voted, on the recent city's poll, to watch the visual art programs on public television. Another pre-supposition by the author is that 15 % more residents that voted to watch the visual art programs is out of their pure interests in such programs. Additionally, the author assumes that if the corporate funding to the public television goes down then so will the attendance to the city's art museums too. Lastly, his presumption is that if the city's funds for the art museum are reallocated to the public television then the attendance to the art museums will too decrease.
The argument would have been justified in case it had provided any support that it is the visual art programs running on the public television that has inspired the people to visit the city's art museums. The argument would have a stronger base if it had provided any proof or evidence as a stand or a reference point that the residents residing 5 years ago are the same as now among which the poll was conducted. Also the argument lacks a proof whether the 15% of the more residents visiting the city's art museums are the same as those who voted to watch the visual arts program on the television on the recent city's conducted poll. Furthermore, no proof has been provided that the residents who voted for the visual art programs actually watched those programs out of pure interest as it could also be the case that the rest programs were boring ultimately giving only the visual art programs as a last resort program option. Additionally, it is baseless to state that if the corporate funds used for public television are cut down then the attendance to the city's art museums will decrease as then the latter will only be the one single source of art information for the residents thereby, perhaps, causing an increase in the attendance too.
The author's argument would have been better constructed incase some potential queries were addressed. A few include :
- Whether the poll conducted was among the same residents before and after the given 5 years in question ?
- Whether the 15% more residents watching the visual art programs were the same as the ones (similar percentage) going to the city's art museums.
- Whether the residents who watched the visual art programs actually chose to watch those programs out of their pure interest for art.
- The reason why the corporate funds used for public television were threatened to receive severe cuts.
Thus, based on reasons cited above the argument in its current form is ill-constructed and flawed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
