For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Given such developments, some city commissioners argue that the symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget.
The argument claims that recently, attendances to the symphony's concert have increased. Besides, the ticket price for the next year will be higher. Therefore, the symphony, itself, has sufficient resources to allot enough financial support to its tasks. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention a lot key factors that on the basis of which, evaluation can be made. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is not cogent, and suffers from a lot flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that following years are similar to the previous ones. This sentence is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. Because each year has its own condition, and even successive years have significant differences in many aspects i.e. tourists. There are a lot of examples that shows that this assumption is fallacious. It is possible that the number of tourists who visited Grandview city was increased because of good weather condition in the summer last year. But, it is not definite that for the next year, we face the same weather condition. Rainy weather can belittle commissioners' prediction in which it will reduce the number of attendances significantly. Besides, it completely depends on the symphony's quality by which people can be attracted to the symphony. If the symphony does not provide qualitative performance for the next year, or repeat the same performance, people will not be absorbed, and the rate of attendances will decrease drastically. Therefore, it is not reliable to decide based on some unreliable evidences. In addition, the argument would have been clearer if it explicitly mentions solid evidences in order to strengthen this assumption.
The second flaw that crosses my mind is that the argument claims that based on the percent of private contributions, it is reasonable to conclude that the symphony will have a reliable financial resource. It is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not mention the absolute number of private contributions for the previous years. To illustrate, it is possible that the number of private contributions was few and is doubled for the last year. This doubled number may not be adequate enough to rely on, and consider it as an appropriate financial support. In fact, the argument does not mention morsel of information about the quantity of previous private supports which is so influential in the commissioner's decision. If such information had been shown, which supposedly work well, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. Additionally, if
the argument provides a good basis for private contribution and its total quantity, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Last but not least, the argument assumes that the number of attendances will enhance the symphony's profit. However, it should be noted that increment in the number of attendances will cost the symphony more in comparison to less audiences. In this situation, the symphony will earn more, but more tax it should pay, more spacious place is required, more acoustic facilities should be provided, to name but a few. It is possible that the number of attendances will increase the symphony's total income. While, it is important to calculate its net profit which is substantial in making a decision about its financial status. Without supporting explanation from the symphony's official, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To sum up what I have outlined above, the argument is flawed and therefore not cogent. It could be strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of certain situation, it is essential to consider all the contributing factors. In this particular case, time dependency of the decision, the relative value of private contributions, and computing net profit of symphony, are three main flaws that should be elaborated more. Without this information, the argument will be unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The argument claims that recently, attendances to the symphony's concert have increased. Besides, the ticket price for the next year will be higher. Therefore, the symphony, itself, has sufficient resources to allot enough financial support to its tasks. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention a lot key factors that on the basis of which, evaluation can be made. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is not cogent, and suffers from a lot flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that following years are similar to the previous ones. This sentence is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. Because each year has its own condition, and even successive years have significant differences in many aspects i.e. tourists. There are a lot of examples that shows that this assumption is fallacious. It is possible that the number of tourists who visited Grandview city was increased because of good weather condition in the summer last year. But, it is not definite that for the next year, we face the same weather condition. Rainy weather can belittle commissioners' prediction in which it will reduce the number of attendances significantly. Besides, it completely depends on the symphony's quality by which people can be attracted to the symphony. If the symphony does not provide qualitative performance for the next year, or repeat the same performance, people will not be absorbed, and the rate of attendances will decrease drastically. Therefore, it is not reliable to decide based on some unreliable evidences. In addition, the argument would have been clearer if it explicitly mentions solid evidences in order to strengthen this assumption.
The second flaw that crosses my mind is that the argument claims that based on the percent of private contributions, it is reasonable to conclude that the symphony will have a reliable financial resource. It is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not mention the absolute number of private contributions for the previous years. To illustrate, it is possible that the number of private contributions was few and is doubled for the last year. This doubled number may not be adequate enough to rely on, and consider it as an appropriate financial support. In fact, the argument does not mention morsel of information about the quantity of previous private supports which is so influential in the commissioner's decision. If such information had been shown, which supposedly work well, the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. Additionally, if
the argument provides a good basis for private contribution and its total quantity, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Last but not least, the argument assumes that the number of attendances will enhance the symphony's profit. However, it should be noted that increment in the number of attendances will cost the symphony more in comparison to less audiences. In this situation, the symphony will earn more, but more tax it should pay, more spacious place is required, more acoustic facilities should be provided, to name but a few. It is possible that the number of attendances will increase the symphony's total income. While, it is important to calculate its net profit which is substantial in making a decision about its financial status. Without supporting explanation from the symphony's official, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To sum up what I have outlined above, the argument is flawed and therefore not cogent. It could be strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of certain situation, it is essential to consider all the contributing factors. In this particular case, time dependency of the decision, the relative value of private contributions, and computing net profit of symphony, are three main flaws that should be elaborated more. Without this information, the argument will be unsubstantiated and open to debate.
