第一次写AA，请大家多多批评指正，十分感谢！

BEER_drinker · 发表于 2015-7-13 11:49:13

3.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.”

正文：
In this argument, the author concludes that, to avoid the decrease in attendance of city’s arts museums, some of city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public televisions. In order to support this conclusion, the author cited the fact that, both the percentage of residents who watch arts TV programs and that of who visit arts museums have increased 15 percents in past 5 years, according to a recent poll. An additional evidence cited by the author is the fact that corporate funding that supports public TV program appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts. At first glance, the recommendation appears to somewhat convincing, but further examination reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

In the first place, the argument rests on the assumption that the reason of the increase in arts TV programs audiences in past 5 years is analogous to the reason of the increase in attendances of city’s arts museums. This assumption is weak, since although both arts TV programs and arts museums are kinds of public arts activities, there is much dissimilarity as well. For example, the organization form, fund-raising way, and target audience of these two kinds of arts activities are quite different. Thus, the comparison of arts television with arts museums may not be that sensible.

In the second place, the poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim dose not indicate who conduct the poll, who responded, or when, where, and how the poll was conducted. For example, if the number of respondents pf TV programs is 200, but that of arts museums is 20’000, the poll may seems not very persuasive. Until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.

In the third place, the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that the number of people who attend to arts museums will undergo a decline as less corporate funding were invested in arts TV programs. However, no evidence is stated in the argument to support this assumption, In fact, this is more likely that there is no relationship between arts TV programs and arts museums. The increase in arts museums maybe not caused by heavier investments but by successful advertising strategies adopted by arts museums. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide evidence about how the poll is conducted and the constitution of the poll’s respondents, to better access the argument, we need additional detailed information about the reason of the increase in arts TV programs audience and in arts museum visitors.

第一次写AA，请大家多多批评指正，十分感谢！

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()