Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2016
Posts: 252
Given Kudos: 33
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Brand Management (Retail)
Review please
[#permalink]
31 Jul 2017, 13:00
Hello experts,
Kindly share your inputs on below.
Argument :
“In a recent citywide poll, fifteen 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:
The argument claims that attendance at city art museum will start to decrease because the visual arts programs on television are being threatened with severe cuts of corporate funding. The argument predicts this behavior because of result of a recent citywide poll. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion relies on certain assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefor the argument is weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument assumes that cut in corporate funding will have a negative impact on the overall viewership of visual arts program on television. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There is no correlation shown between the increase in viewership and corporate funding. There are several examples from other fields of business where corporate funding had no overall impact on the success of an institution. For example, many visual art colleges have run successfully in the past without any funding. The argument would have been much clearer if it showed impact of corporate funding in improved viewership.
Second, the argument also assumes that a drop in television audience of visual arts shows will have a direct negative impact on number of people visiting the art museum. This again is a weak and completely unsupported claim. The argument doesn’t show any correlation between the television audience and people visiting the museum. The argument doesn’t clearly specify reasons there will a dip in number of people visiting museum. There is a possibility that television and museum cater to completely different set of audience. Even in this case a dip in television viewership will have no impact on footfall in the museum. If any correlation was shown between the two entities compared, then the argument would have sounded much more convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. This recommendation is vague and with relevant numbers to support it. The author doesn’t suggest how much funds should be reallocated to public television. It is also not mentioned whether these funds will be sufficient to offset the loss because of cut in corporate funding. Without supporting evidences and examples, one is left with the impression that the claim is a more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.