Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Need Expert reviews on my essay, exam in for days! [#permalink]
19 Oct 2013, 06:33
The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city's council on arts:
“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 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.
In the argument at hand the author presents a situation of the city where there has been a fifteen percent jump in the number of residents who watch television programs about the visual parts in comparison to a poll held half a decade ago. There has also been a corresponding increase in the number of visitors to the art museums of the city. The author then makes an assumption that reducing the funding for public television which air visual arts programs would also reduce the number of people visiting the city's art museums. The author, thus, suggests that some of the resources for supporting arts should be reallocated to public television in order to maintain the viewership of the visual arts programs thereby maintaining the number of people visiting the city's museums.
On the surface, the argument seems partially sound. A closer analysis, however reveals that the argument suffers from certain flaws. The conclusion drawn by the author is weakened by some unproved causalities, hasty generalizations and unwarranted assumptions.
To begin with the author mentions that there has been an increase of fifteen percent of the city's residents viewership programs and an increase in the number of people visiting art museums implying that the the increase in viewership of the visual arts programs on the television is somehow causing an interest in people for arts and encouraging them to visit fine arts museums in the city. This assumption by the author is not supported by any evidence. The rise in the viewership of did not necessarily cause the rise in the number of people visiting the museums. Over those five years there could have been a change in the variety of shows available on public television, perhaps an increase in the absolute number of shows aired regarding fine arts causing people to watch more shows related to them. While, an increase in the number of people could be because of an increase in the number of young students being taken for a field trip to the museums in pre nursery and nursery schools. Thus making the increase in the number of people watching the shows and going to the museums purely coincidental.
Moreover, the author has assumed that a decrease in the number of shows related to fine arts being watched by the people would correlate to a decline in their interest towards fine arts and consequentially a decline in the number of people visiting the museums. However, this assumptions seems to unconvincing. The people who are genuinely interested in fine arts would in fact, visit the museums more if the public spending were to decrease and the number of shows available related to fine arts would decline.
To summarize the argument could be strengthened had the author taken into account the flaws outlined above. The author needs to provide more relevant data about the correlation between the increase in the viewership of the visual arts related television programs and the number of people visiting the arts museums to reach a more viable conclusion.
Need Expert reviews on my essay, exam in for days!
19 Oct 2013, 06:33