【GRE作文互助组】Charles's Argument 作业贴
本帖最后由 charlesliye 于 2012-9-9 09:50 编辑61 The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the City of Grandview.
"To avoid a budget deficit next year, the City of Grandview must eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony.”
Our citizens are well aware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra was struggling to succeed, our city government promised annual funding to help support its programs. Last year, however, private contributions to the Symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at the Symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The Symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Such developments indicate that the Symphony can now succeed without funding from city government and we can eliminate that expense from next year's budget. This action will surely prevent a budget deficit."
The passage give here contains some well-presented arguments, but not well-supported and well-reasoned. While it is may be true that stop the support to for the symphony would reduce the government budget, but the argument is rife with defect and assumptions. For example, the author cites that the increasing of attendance last year, the increased private contribution and the plan to raise the ticket prices. At first sight, this argument is reasonable and veracious, but delves a bit more we realize that the argument does not make a cogent case.
Citing the increased private contribution by 200 percent, the author assumes that the funding for the symphony will be enough. But this is not convincing as it seemed as. For example, perhaps the funding for the symphony is provided by several aspects such as the local government, the state government, the private and so on. In the overall amount of funding, the private only contribute absolutely a minority. Although the percentage appears very large, the absolutely number is still very small, and only a small percent of the total funding. Unless how much of the private contribution is provided, the recommendation is completely unwarranted.
Building on the implication that the attendance at the concerts-in-the park will provide more funding to the symphony the author assume that the symphony will be fully self-supporting. The author cites the announcing of increase in ticket price to support his argument. If all the attendance at the concerts-in-the-park will buy the ticket this may be supported more solid. However, perhaps the tickets are for only few particular concerts and most of them is free. The symphony cannot make much money from the tickets. Even though the all the concerts need tickets, perhaps the tickets price is very low before, and the increase of ticket price just for the increase of cost of the concert. The symphony still cannot earn money from the tickets. Consequently the author fail to answer the crucial question if the symphony will self-supporting from the increased attendance and ticket price. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument’s conclusion.
In sum, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author should answer the question on what extent the private contribution can support the symphony, and if the symphony can be fully self-supporting. Without substantiate evidence about the expense and income of the symphony, the recommendation of cut the funding for the symphony is just an emotional appeal.
页:
[1]