“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 by 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.”
The author argues that because a survey conducted recently shows that 15 percent more residents watch TV programs about the visual arts than people did five years ago, and, throughout the past five years, the city’s art museums also experienced an similar increase in the number of visitors, some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public television. However, the argument is not well reasoned since the author has confused the time sequence with the cause and effect and also failed to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed policy.
First, the author carelessly regards the two phenomena, an increase in the visual-art-related TV program viewership and another in the visitors to the art museums, as the cause and effect. He assumes that because people can cultivate their interests in arts through TV programs, they go to art museums more often. However, the evidence that supports the assumption only comes from the proximity of these two increases in terms of time, which leaves the whole argument in doubt since no other supporting details is offered and we can only take it as more a coincidence than the real cause and effect.
Second, the plan of funding the public television in order to promote arts is hard to evaluate with the limited information offered in the passage. Because the relation between the increase in TV show viewers and the increase in visitors can hardly be identified based on the poll alone, we cannot conclude that the funds invested in the public television will be effective. Furthermore, it’s still possible that since the public TV station has been airing TV programs regarding the visual arts, less and less people will be willing to go to the museums by themselves, which decreases the number of visitors. Thus, the proposed funding is not a guarantee for promoting the visual arts.
In conclusion, because the argument has neglected several key issues, it’s not sound or convincing. If it could avoid the problems mentioned above, the argument should have been more logical and credible.
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Parents today are more involved in their children s education than were parents in the past Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?If people have the opportunity to get a secure job, they should take it right away rather than wait for a job that he would be more satisfying. Use specific reasons and examples to support you answer. 40
- Many students have to live with roommates while going to school or university. What are some of the important qualities of a good roommate? Use specific reasons and examples to explain why these qualities are important. 70
- In the future students may have the choice of studying at home by using technology such as computers or television or of studying at traditional schools Which would you prefer Use reasons and specific details to explain your choice 93
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Telephones and email have made communication between people less personal. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 50
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 342 350
No. of Characters: 1685 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.3 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.927 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.563 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.091 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.805 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.63 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5