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 i

In the given argument, it has been concluded that the increase in footfall in city’s art museums has proportionate relationship with the increase in viewers of visual arts programs which are broadcasted on public television. Since public television is supported by corporate funding, any cut in corporate funding will lead have indirect effect on attendance in city’s art museums. So, argument concludes that it is required to be allocated some of the city’s funds for supporting the visual arts and thus public television.

There are several flaws in the argument. First is that it has been indirectly assumed in the argument that percentage increase in people watching visual arts on TV are the same people who had visited city’s art museums. This can not be the case. Both can be independent to each other. Increase in footfall into city’s art museums could be due to tourists. Tourist numbers depend on various factors favorable to foreigners. While increase in viewership could be due to that people are spending more time on television now than they did 5 years ago or it could be due to that TV cable connections have increased now.

Second flaw which is visible is the assumption that any cut in corporate funding will have direct effect on no. of visitors to city’s arts museums. As explained above that it can not be said that decrease in TV viewership will lead to decrease in footfalls. There is no such direct relationship can be drawn based on the argument reasoning. Thus, allocation of some of city’s funds based solely on this logic is not logical. Allocation can be done considering all other factors such as to start new art programs, availability of TV connections to general public whoa are not able to visit museums due some reasons.

Third flaw is related to poll. It needs to be found out details of poll such as target area of the survey, who were the samples, what were the questions asked in the poll? Unless all above questions are not answered, it is not correct to conclude the conclusion. For example, if target viewership for the poll was different this time than 5 years ago, it could lead to different results; old or retired people could have different answer to poll questions than young or working class.

Hence, it is advisable to decide budget reallocation after considering all factors such reason for increase or decrease in tourist, target viewership of poll, reason for corporate funding cut. conclusion made on assumptions will not help taking correct decision.