"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 ..."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The argument that the decrease in attendance at city's art museum results from corporate funding on public television omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. When the corporate funding is threatened, the author anticipates the down-ward trend of visitors and proposes the method of reallocating fund to public television. This alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of rising participants in city's art museum and it certainly does not provide support or proof of the main argument.
To begin with, the author shows a close correlation between people viewing visual arts programs on television and people visiting art museums. This comparison is invalid. There is no evidence that the sample of participants surveyed on television program is the same like that in real museums. Those who attend the arts museum may not watch arts museum program before. And those who view television also may not visit the museum. Due to this reason, the above hypothesis makes the conclusion problematic.
Secondly, there are many ways to improve the revenue of arts museum, not just the sole solution of reallocating fund to public television. The author does not present any proof of decreased attendance of museum due to limited investment in television programs. It is just anticipation. In order to attract many visitors to arts museum, services should be developed and interesting activities can be advertised on the Internet instead of only living art shows on television. Because of these reasons, the given method is not persuasive.
Finally, according to statement given, the funding supporting visual programs comes from corporate parties, whereas state or non-profit organizations are not mentioned. The severe cut on corporate funding may not be large enough to affect the art broadcast. The author lacks a general view of current matter and just focus on only aspect of that. It puts forwards to an unconvincing assumption.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, it is not sound or persuasive. If it included the items discussed above instead of solely suggesting a solution based on flawed reasons, the argument would have been more thorough and convincing.