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

The argument states that the city council should reallocate some of the city’s arts funds to public television to prevent the expected decline in museum attendance. Since corporate funding in public television is facing severe cuts, the city council believes it will negatively affect the attendance in the city’s art museums. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Furthermore, the conclusion relies heavily on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is ill-reasoned, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument implicitly assumes that the increase in the number of people visiting art museums is because of a similar increase in the number of residents who watch television programs on visual arts. This assumption is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. For instance, what if the population that visits art museums does not overlap with the one watching television programs? It could be the case that more people are visiting museums because of the establishment of new museums in the city or a decrease in ticket prices. The argument would be much clearer if it explicitly establishes the causation between television programs on visual arts and their effect on attendance in museums.

Secondly, the argument states that cuts in corporate funding in public television will lead to a reduction in the volume of visual arts programs. Again, this is a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not provide any solid evidence to arrive at the claim. For example, the cuts in funding could be only in programs that are not related to arts such as sports, news, or movies. Then, in that case, even if there is a decrease in funding, the arts programs will not suffer and remain immune. Without considering various aspects of funding, the claim is not at all convincing.

Finally, the conclusion states that the city council should reallocate some funding from arts to public television. However, it fails to take into account the negative implications of a reduction in funds that support existing art museum in the city. What if the reallocation to public television can not compensate for a targeted decrease in arts-related funding? In that case, the city council’s plan would not work. Without this, one gets the impression that the conclusion is more of wishful thinking instead of an evidence-based outcome.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore not convincing. Without covering all possible factors and providing evidence for underlying assumptions, the argument is rather weak and open to debate. If the argument incorporates the above-mentioned aspects, the recommendation could become well-reasoned and logical.