please grade my essay! much appreciated

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 visited 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.

The argument that the city’s funds should support public television to ultimately, support the arts is flawed and not sound due to assumptions that correlation equals causation and that apples should be treated the same as oranges.

Can one soundly assume that a rise in residents watching more art programs on tv is leading to more residents also going to museums? The argument does not give any justifications into why one should cause the other. Perhaps the museum opened a new exhibit or the television program has a new show that people are interested in separately, causing a rise in attendance and viewing. Furthermore, if we don’t have information on who is either visiting the museum or who is watching the tv shows, we cannot make this assumption. If there is not a large overlap between the two groups, then we cannot say that the television programs are leading people to visit the museum since some may be going to the museum on their own.

This statement also fails to describe what kind of art is being displayed at the museum or what kind of shows are being broadcasted on the television program. If the two were showing completely different art, then we cannot assume that the rise in popularity is correlated. We would need more information on the topics being covered and artists being showcased in order to make a more sound assumption. There is also no explanation of ticket prices for the museum or where the museum is located. Public television is free to residents, while the museum may not be. People who may be watching the programs may not be able to afford to go to the museum at all, especially if it is located far away and there is no easily accessible public transportation. In short, comparing the television program and the museum is like comparing apples to oranges - the two are not directly related with the limited information provided.

Because the argument makes several unfounded assumptions, it fails to adequately support that the city should reallocate art funds to public television.