“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 h

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.