Please read. ESL student. Really need help.

[jnbimmer]

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.

[capnx]

I'd suggest to always pay attention when an argument provides some sort of data, such as percentages and yearly trends. You can usually attack the data as incomplete or bias and weaken the argument.

The biggest problem I see with the argument is the 15% and the past five years offered as the assumptions. You don't know what the 15% represents, how the data was collected, how representative of the population, what was the sample size...

the 5 year trend, you don't know how this data is collected. You don't know if the trend will continue into the future.

a third problem with the argument is the correlation assumed between television viewers and museum attendance. you mentioned this in your introduction but you didn't attack this clearly in your body paragraph.

also, in your own argument try to not use too strong of a statement such as "it will completely destroy the author's claim". Instead, use softer but firm phrases such as "this only weakens the argument", "the argument could be strengthened had the author provided this information", and "the claim/assumption/conclusion is not justified"

[jnbimmer]

Thank you for the read. Very useful tips and comments. Greatly appreciated.