Hi could you pls aevaluate my AOA regarding structure, argumnet presented , volume and etc
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.
In the argument, the aurthor states that according to a recent citywide poll, in a city there is 15 percent more residents questioned watch television programs about the visual arts than it was conducted in a poll five years ago. The number of people who visit the city’s museums has surged by a similar level. Since corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with significant cuts, the author has concern that attendance at the city’s art museums will also decrease. Thus, he proposed to reallocate the city’s fund for supporting the arts to public television. The argument is lacking important information and has several flaws. Thus, it’s considered inconvincing.
In the first place, the arguer fails to mention whether the increase in people visiting the city’s museums during past five years has been due to residents or nonresident. The number of visitors of the city’s museums might have surged owing to more tourists coming to the city. It is especially the case if the city has world-wide known museums which are often visited by tourists. As tourists usually don’t watch local TV, but prefer to use a city guide to choose a place to visit, it can be reasonably concluded that television programs about visual arts have little effect on tourist’s preferences. Thus, the number of the museums visitors might not decrease at all even if the television programs about the visual arts will be reduced.
In the second place, it is questionable whether the city’s fund for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television to support programs about the visual arts translation. The fund’s money might be highly required in other art spheres of the city, such as the museums’ maintenance, purchase of new paintings for the museums or support for young artists. Thus, the reallocation might cause advert effect on the museums attractiveness for visitors and their number might even decrease.
Finally, it also very important to know from what source the city’ residents get knowledge about the visual arts. Whether in the city there is published enough magazines, newspapers’ articles or books which popularize the visual arts and advertise local museums. If there is lots of them, then the television programs might have little affect on the residents’ attitude towards local exhibitions.
Based on the flaws mentioned above, the argument is considered inconclusive. If the author has provided more information of the state of the city’s museums, local sources of information about the museums exhibitions and the residents’ art preferences, the conclusion might have been better reasoned.