The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview."It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It istrue that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year privat

Essay topics:

The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.

"It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is
true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private
contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's
concerts-­in­-the­park series doubled. In addition, the symphony has just announced an
increase in ticket prices for next year . For these reasons, we recommend that the city
eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget. We
predict that the symphony will flourish in the years to come even without funding from the
city ."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order
to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to
explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.

The memo makes an argument for stopping the funding for Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget as it can flourish in years to come without the funding. The argument is supported with evidence regarding increased private contributions, attendance and ticket prices. However, there are a number of questions that arise from the premises that need to be properly answered to ensure the argument is sound.

Firstly, there is a question of whether increasing the private contributions by 200 percent and doubling of attendance does indeed help symphony financially. It may be possible that the increase in private contributions may not be significant . For instance, 200 percent increase in contributions from initial level of 10 rupees may only mean 30 rupees, while it could be a significant 3000 when the initial value is 1000 rupees. In the former case the numbers are insignificant to warrant a cut in funding of the symphony in the long term. Similarly, there is possibility that the attendance has doubled from 10 to 20, which makes it insignificant to make any conclusions regarding additional funding requirement. To strengthen the argument there is a need to provide evidence that increases are indeed significant.

Secondly, there is a question of whether the increase in ticket prices mean that there is a significant improvement in the financial situation of the symphony. It may be probable the increase is mere 1 percent or it could it be 100 percent. In the former case it is rather insignificant to draw any conclusions about financial strength. Furthermore, even if the ticket prices have increased by significantly like say 100 percent, there is no evidence that overall general attendance has increased or decreased. It may be probable that except for the concerts-in-the-park series rest of the programmes have registered a decrease in attendance resulting in overall decrease in attendance. This nullifies any advantage due to increased ticket prices.

Finally, even if it is proven that all the above evidence do prove to increase the financial position of Symphony for a given year, there is question of whether such a situation may continue for years to come. There is no evidence presented that rosy picture may continue in the future. Moreover, removing the government support at this crucial juncture while it is yet to replicate the success on a constant basis, may in fact be detrimental to the symphony as it can reverse back to ugly situation of past. Thus, argument to withdraw the support may be ill-advised at best and a quantum leap of faith.

In conclusion, there is need of further evidence required to answer questions that arise at closer examination. Unless these are answered the argument is highly suspect at best.

Votes
Average: 8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- OK
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 452 350
No. of Characters: 2273 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.611 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.029 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.956 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 111 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.186 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5