My 1st post - AWA - Can someone please review and rate my essay ?
[#permalink]
02 Jul 2017, 11:55
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.”
Analysis:
The argument states that television programs about Visual arts that appear in Public television are the only reason for more people to visit City’s Art Museum. This Conclusion is based solely on the recent citywide poll conducted where 15% more people, compared to a poll 5 years ago, said that they watch these tv programs and the author co-relates this increased % to the increase in attendance in Art MuseumA, which is tenuous at best.
The argument fails to consider several key factors that are required for the stated Conclusion to follow. Clearly, the argument is not well reasoned and is flawed for various different reasons as articulated in coming paragraphs.
First of all and most conspicuously, the argument readily claims that these TV programs are solely responsible for more people visiting the Museum. It could be the case, where the City’s residents are themselves more interested and more passionate towards Visual Arts and they really do not need any kind of external motivation to visit one such museum.
Second, of all, the argument states that based on a recent citywide poll, 15% more residents watch these television programs than was the case in a poll conducted 5 years ago. Clearly, the evidence provided here is a Conjecture. Did the Author performed a Population check and compared it with the population 5 years ago?
With outperforming such analysis, it is hard to say whether there is an increase in the number of residents watching Visual arts programs or not.
Furthermore, argument intends that more people are visiting the Museum only because of television programs, related to visual arts. This premise is weak and not well reasoned and a clear case of Causation & Correlation issue, as it could be the case where more number of people started watching TV programs only after visiting the Art Museum. In such scenario, it is not realistic to anticipate a decrease in the number of people visiting the Museum, even though Public television stops airing such programs.
Lastly, argument mentions that most of the Visual Art programs appear in Public television but not all of them. So, though there is an interruption of such programs in Public television, people will still have access to few such programs via alternate sources.
In sum, the argument is neither persuasive nor convincing as it stands. Had it considered all aforementioned points as detailed above, the author would have not only strengthened and bolstered his argument but also would have made his argument more logical and Cogent.