Here the author concludes that some of the city’s funds for supporting arts should be reallocated.

The
author states that due to severe cuts in corporate funding. Secondly, the author is directly connecting
the fact of severe cuts in corporate funding for public television will directly affect the decrease in
attendance of the art museum.

To start with the argument, the first presumption was made that the increase in art visual channels on
public television is directly correlated with the increase in the attendance of the art museum is totally
void. Because the increase or decrease in watching arts visual channels is not statistically correlated with
an increase or decrease in the attendance of the art museum.

In continuing with this we can assume that maybe some change or policies has been revised due for that
reason there has been an increase in the attendance in the art museum. Maybe the new kind of events
aspired the public to come and experience the art museum so that there is an increase in attendance in
the museum. Some kinds of exhibitions motivate the public to attend the museum. So these are some of
the reason which increases the attendees in the museum.

Furthermore, we can suggest that with the severe cut in the funding for public television decreases, we
can assume now people have more time so they can visit the museum more rather than sitting at home
which is the reason for the increase in the attendees in the museum.

Moreover, the author suggests reallocating the funding of arts to public television which is totally void.
This argument by the author weakens the argument because the funding which is allocated to arts if
they are transferred to public television then the culture of the art may be destroyed.

In conclusion, I somewhat do not agree with the author reasoning.