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. 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 with 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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument discussed in the memorandum on the arts from a large city’s council tries to establish a direct link between the number of visits to the art museums and the amount of media coverage with regard to the visual arts. According to the surveys, which were conducted 5 years ago, the 15 per cent increase in TV programs on arts resulted in the approximately same amount of growth in the number of people visiting the city’s art centres. However, now the public television, which mainly broadcasts those art programs, faces the lack of financial support as a result of a severe decrease in corporate funding. Consequently, the city council, which hypothesises that this tendency will cause the decline of the interest towards the museums, concerns about the current situation. At the same time they suggest subsidising the public television through the city’s funds. However, the statement is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, people’s views on the media have changed dramatically in very recent times. Thus, the poll, which was held 5 years ago, cannot be applicable now anymore. Because, 5 years ago people used to watch TV a lot rather than they do today. However, now they prefer social media and spend most of their spare time by surfing on it. Before making any conclusion, the new poll should be conducted and the number of people regularly watching TV should be revealed. Therefore, the survey of 5 years on media cannot act as a justified fact for this argument.
Secondly, the city council claims that the amount of media coverage on TVs will increase the interest for the art museums. This is again a very weak and totally unsupported statement, as the argument does not demonstrate any direct correlation between the number of TV programs and museum visits. There might be other reasons, which affect the interest for the art centres. For instance, the activities such as any promotions by the museums, the textbooks, the role of social media etc. should also be analysed in detail before drawing any conclusion with regard to the art museums.
Finally, the city council is going to reallocate the financial support that is supposed to be paid for the arts. However, this statement would deviate the authorities from the main purpose. Because, the primary goal is to preserve the art pieces, not the promote them. If the city council reallocates the funds, the amount of money for the supporting the arts will decrease. Consequently, the questions like “How much will the reallocation of the arts funds be effective?”, “Will the support for the arts themselves be affected?” remain open to debate. Without convincing answers to these questions, one left with the impression that the claim is more of an amateur thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts with respect to the correlation between the number of museum visits and the amount of TV coverage. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the role of innovations, time, promotions by themselves of the museums and other tens of aspects should be taken into account. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | gautam0196 | 50 | view |
| 2018-12-17 | sumanjan | 33 | view |
| 2016-09-27 | yusif.usubov | 83 | view |
- The following appeared in a report presented for discussion at a meeting of the directors of a company that manufactures parts for heavy machinery: “The falling revenues that the company is experiencing coincide with delays in manufacturing. These delay 83
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the business department of the Apogee Company:“When the Apogee Company had all its operations in one location, it was more profitable than it is today. Therefore, the Apogee Company should close down its field 83
- 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 a 83
- The chart shows the results of a survey about the most important inventions in the last 300 years 82
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... ago, cannot be applicable now anymore. Because, 5 years ago people used to watch TV a ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 252, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...goal is to preserve the art pieces, not the promote them. If the city council reallocates t...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as a result', 'first of all', 'with regard to', 'with respect to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.262048192771 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.117469879518 0.15541462614 76% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0722891566265 0.0836205057962 86% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0557228915663 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0150602409639 0.0272364105082 55% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126506024096 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0346385542169 0.0416121511921 83% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.922532165 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0225903614458 0.026700313972 85% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.14156626506 0.113004496875 125% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0210843373494 0.0255425247493 83% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00903614457831 0.0127820249294 71% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3491.0 2731.13054187 128% => OK
No of words: 567.0 446.07635468 127% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1569664903 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.389770723104 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.289241622575 0.287650121315 101% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.220458553792 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.141093474427 0.135150697306 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.922532165 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 207.018472906 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485008818342 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 58.669768087 52.1807786196 112% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 20.25 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.792638528 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.678571429 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 49.1741622575 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 2.248 1.8405768891 122% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.482516097099 0.441005458295 109% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.106915119556 0.135418324435 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0801118748515 0.0829849096947 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.578501652257 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.142961820758 0.147661913831 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.197301836995 0.193483328276 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0971622689995 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.495969189604 0.42659136922 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0918995689978 0.0774707102158 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.338521642618 0.312017818177 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.088514780051 0.0698173142475 127% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.82512315271 207% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. The e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.