The argument states that the city's funds will help in supporting the arts by reallocating funds to

public television and that, as a result, will increase the number of people visiting the city's art
museums which was decreased earlier because of severe cuts in corporate funding that supports
public television. The argument in its current form, is not convincing- the support provided for the
conclusion is weak and the argument makes too many unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, the argument assumes that by reallocating city's fund which supporting arts to public
television will help in increasing the number of people visiting the city's art museums. The argument
fails to consider that the possibility that allocation of city's fund to public television is not allowed.
Secondly, the argument fails to establish one of its major premises: the supposed increase in
residents. Not only the fifteen percent figure suspect, the link between the residents which watch
the television about the visual arts and the people visiting the city’s art museum. Thirdly, the
argument doesn’t explore why the public television is being threatened with severe cuts in the first
place and how it will be affecting the number of people visiting the city’s art museums. For example,
in case of a deepening, global, recession, it is possible that the number of people visiting the city’s
museum will drop irrespective of the cuts in public television.

The argument does not address these issues. If it did, and if it examined why the attendance in city’s
museum will decrease and whether reallocation of funds will actually help, it could have been more
convincing.