AWA feedback please!
[#permalink]
06 Feb 2015, 21:51
Hi,
I'd be extremely grateful if I could get some valuable feedback and an indicative score on the following AWA answer:
The following article appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts:
“In a recent citywide poll, 15 per cent 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.”
Answer:
This argument is seriously flawed and omits important concerns that must be adequately addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument concludes that “some of the city’s funds for supporting arts should be reallocated to public television”. This conclusion is too vague. For example, the funding from the city could be reallocated to a different portfolio of the public television’s budget resulting in negatively impacting the arts in two different ways at once.
In addition to the above, the argument assumes that the increase in television programs about the visual arts correlate to the increase in the people visiting the city’s art museums. There is no evidence provided to back up this assumption. For example, if the arts museums undertook an advertising campaign in the local newspapers, promoted exciting exhibitions that appealed to the people or even introduced family discount tickets, the numbers attending the museum may have increased regardless of the increase in residents that watch television programs about the arts. Also, the percentage of funding received from corporate funding compared to the funding received from other means, including the city funds has not been evaluated. Therefore, if evidence was provided that the corporate funding that supports public television was minimal then, it would be fair to assume that there would not be a significant impact to the level of programs about the visual arts.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for reasons outlined above. The argument failed to address specific evidence to back up the conclusion that “some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television”.
Thank you in advance.