Please
EXPERT team could you rate my herebelow essay?
-------------------------------------------------
The argument claims that since during the same time frame, the increase in the rate of residents visiting the city art museums is the same as that in the number of residents watching television, funding cuts for television’s programs where most of visual arts appear will lead to a decrease in the attendance of city’ art museums, hence, some funding for supporting arts should be reallocated to public television. Stated in that way, the argument omits several important elements that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument relies on an unfounded causal relationship for which no fact-based evidence has been provided. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First the argument assumes that since the increase in the rate of television watchers and in the rate of city art museums visits occur at the same time, the two events are casually related. One cannot deny the fact that in some case the simultaneous occurrence of two events may signal a casual relationship, but in this case the author assumption may not hold true because each event can have its own cause. For instance, imagine that during the same time frame, the number of tourists visiting the city increased by 15% and that the number of persons per house increased by more than 15%. In that case, the increase in the rate of arts museum visitors may be attributed to the number of tourists and the increase of resident television watcher to the increase in the number of persons per house. Additionally, the argument ruled out the fact that both events can have the same cause. For example, it may be the case that city residents may have become interested in arts and due to the high cost of museum ticket entry, some residents decided to experience art through television programs and the others through museum visits. Clearly, interest in art triggered both television program attendance and museum arts visits. Moreover, behind the author assertion there is an unstated assumption that reduction of funding for television art program will have a negative impact on the number of city museums visitors. In reality, it could be that after a certain number of television visual art programs has been released, the subsequent have no impact on the viewers and are therefore unnecessary. In that case adding or reducing funding will not impact the number city art museum visitor. To end, the author argument has no legs to stand on because if the total population of the country has decreased over the last five year while both the number of residents watching visual art program and the number of residents visiting the art museum remain unchanged, there is no surprise to see the increase of both the rate of resident watching art program and the rate of visitors to museum. Yet the author has not ruled out this eventuality.
Second the argument conclusion that fund dedicated to city art should be allocated to public television is fallacious. On the one hand, by assigning the funds dedicated to art to public television, one cannot guarantee that those will be used to finance art programs. On the other hand, even if some of those funds will be used for visual art program, there is no guarantee that these programs would have a greater impact than other non-television programs used to promote art, such as schools and homes campaigns to sensitize population about importance of art or subsidy for museums entry tickets
In summary, because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is neither sound nor persuasive, and therefore unconvincing. It would have been more thorough or convincing if the author closed the gap discussed above. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have a full knowledge of all contributing factors.