写了一篇AA， 请牛牛们帮忙看看

75663131

AA003

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.”
In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that the city’s funds which mainly support the arts should be reallocated to public television. The basis for this recommendation is that watching television programs about the visual arts will contribute to a higher attendance of art museums. An additional reason is given in support of this recommendation is that corporate funding which supports public television is now threatened by severe cuts. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

In the first place, the poll cited by the author is too vague to be informative. Lacking information about the number and the background of the respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For instance, the respondents are the same people surveyed five years ago or not. Besides, how many people surveyed is also crucial to reach the conclusion since a few respondents can’t represent the whole city. Until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.

In the second place, the author falsely depends on a gratuitous assumption that increasing visual art television programs facilitate the attendance of art museums. This is, however, no guarantee that it is the case.Just as likely, people may spend the same time or even less time to watch visual arts programs. For instance, lower tickets, longer opening hours or more convenient transportation can also stimulate the attendance of art museums. Lacking this assumption, the reason for reallocating the city’s funds is unfounded.

In the third place, the author commits a fallacy of casual oversimplification. The line of reasoning is that the coming cutting of corporate funding supporting public television is responsible for possible decline of the attendance in the city’s art museums. However, no evidence is offered to support this relationship.

In conclusion, the author fails to provide adequate justification that the city’s funds which mainly support the arts should be reallocated to public television. As it stands, the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument in favor of the recommendation. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide evidence to prove that the poll can be trusted and increasing visual art television programs indeed facilitate the attendance of art museums. To better assess the argument, the author also need additional detailed information about the link between the coming cuttings of corporate and the attendance in the city’s art museums so that we can ensure validity of the conclusion.