The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city ofGrandview.
"Our citizens are well aware of the fact that while the GrandviewSymphony Orchestra was struggling to succeed, our city government promisedannual funding to help support its programs. Last year, however, privatecontributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at thesymphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announcedan increase in ticket prices for next year. Such developments indicate that thesymphony can now succeed without funding from city government and we can eliminatethat expense from next year's budget. Therefore, we recommend that the city ofGrandview eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony from next year'sbudget. By doing so, we can prevent a city budget deficit without threateningthe success of the symphony."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to beanswered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have thepredicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions wouldhelp to evaluate the recommendation.
The main idea in this memo is to recommend a elimination of funding in thecity of Grandview's Symphony from the next year's budget. But it is overlyfocusing a increasing profit in the Grandview Symphony on the increased by 200percent private contributions to it, by which the budget planner indicates thatthe symphony can now succeed without funding from city government. However, wemay ask that what the base amount of private contributions last year is. Withsuch doubt, we cannot evaluate if the contributions were significant; furtherdiscussion on this issue would be presented as below.
Private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent, andattendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled, which hasbeen used to support the assumption that the number of contributions and theattendance this year will be great. However, this assumed increase might beweakened by further doubting two scenarios. First, will the phenomena cited bythe planner, including the increased private contributions, popularity ofconcerts series, recur in the following years? Maybe this phenomenon happenedlast year was just a coincidence, like a famous conductor was hired by the symphony,which inspires such increase in contributors and audiences. Secondly, just asmentioned above, what's the base amount of private contributions to the symphonythe year before last? If we have no idea about the actual sponsors and attendancesat the concert the year before last, we cannot evaluate it indifferently.Considering there are only two or three sponsors the year before last, thisyear the number of sponsors just increase to four or six, which is littlesignificance. The scenario is the same as to the attendances. Given these twopossibilities, it is plausible to take into account the mentioned scenarios;the memo in this sense turns out to be limited and largely veiled. So, toprovide the information about the base amount of sponsors and attendances tothe symphony the year before last would help more accurately identify the realsituation.
Besides that, the planner also cites that the symphony has announced anincrease in ticket prices for next year. We hold this doubt: how much will the ticketsprices actually increase? If the price doesn’t increase in a great amount, the profit it brings will just a little, onone hand. On the other, if the increase is quiet big, many attendances mightnot attend the concert due to the high price. Because of the inadequateinformation about the price increase, the recommendation there is too invalidto convince others. Thus, the planner's understanding of this issue would beoverly simplified, thereby requiring more data about the symphony.
After analyzing the above two points, i would like to discuss some boltsand nuts about the final suggestion to eliminate the city's funding for theGrandview Symphony from the next year budget. Is eliminating the funding forthe symphony alone sufficient for preventing a budget deficit? Perhaps thefunding for the symphony is just a small part of the whole government funding。 So eliminating the funding for the symphony meanslittle. Moreover, maybe the budget deficit is caused by other reasons, whichthe funding of symphony cannot compare.
In a nut shell, we need know the base amount of private contributions andthe attendance to help this budget planner understand this problem, and theexact increased price of the ticket. As well as do not forget the other possibilitiescan result in the budget deficit. After that, we can evaluate therecommendation in a more wit sense.
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-11-13 21:11:23
收藏
收藏
