Feedback on this AWA practice will be highly appreciated!

Hi Everyone,

It is my first AWA practice, it will be amazing if you can give me some feedback. Your opinion will be highly valued.

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.”

Response:
This argument claims that some of the city’s fund should be reallocated to the public television because of the author predicate that the number of city museums’ visitor will decrease due to the severe cuts on public televisions' budget. Stated in this way this argument failed to mentioned several key factors, on the basis of it could be evaluated. This argument relies on the assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, this argument is rather weak and unconvincing.

First of all, this argument assumes that there is a negative correlation between the number of city museums’ visitors and the budget of the public television. This is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are many other factors which will have an impact on the number of city museums’ visitors. Such as the ticket price and the location of the museum. This argument would have been much clearer if it gave the example of other influential factors of the visitors’ number.

Secondly, this argument claims that the more budget the public television has, the more visual arts programs will appear on the television. Again, this is a weak and unsupportive claim as this argument does not demonstrate the quantitative relationship between the television budget and the number of art programs it will broadcast. If it provided the quantitative relationship between these two variables, this argument would have been a lot more convincing.

This argument failed to mention several influential factors and the correlation between two important variables, the number of art programs and the budget of public television. As a consequence, it leaves an impression that this argument is more like a wishful thought rather than a substantive evidence. Hence, this argument has no legs to stand on.

In summary, this argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerately strengthened if the author mentions all relevant factors. In order to assess the merit of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.

I really appreciate your time on reading and writing to me your opinion.
Cheers,
Sally