The author of the report states that more TV viewers started to watch programs about visual arts ... The author of the report states that more TV viewers started to watch programs about visual arts and that, thanks to that new pattern in TV watching, the number of museum visitors increased correspondently. But for the next year the author forecasts decrease in number of museum visitors because funding of public TV which broadcasts programs devoted to visual arts is expected to decrease. Thus, his proposal is to relocate city’s funds supporting the arts from conventional methods of support to public television. However, there are several assumptions that may not necessarily apply to the argument. To begin with, what kind of programs devoted to visual arts city residents started to watch more? Is it a programs devoted to production of 3D films? That is a kind of visual art too. Or creating graphics in Photoshop, optical illusions or interior design? In fact, residents may call any graphic program as “a program about visual art” but that does not necessarily deal with anything related to museum art objects. As a result, respondents could mislead unintentionally, if questions were not specified properly. On top of that, because they try to impress interviewers, respondents tend to lie when questions come to cultural aspects. Thus, even if questions were specified properly, respondents still might lie intentionally. So to bring more relevance to the fact, the author should bring more clarity on definition of “programs, devoted to visual arts”. The second point here is the correlation between increase in viewing of specific TV programs and increase in visiting of museums. Did residents start to watch more TV or they changed their conventional preferences to programs about visual arts. Because if residents started to watch more TV, they have less time for other activities, including visiting of museums. Moreover, other visitors than city residents could composite increase in museum visiting. For example, tourists. As a rule, people visit museums when they have plenty of leisure time which usually occurs on vacation; and on vacation people prefer to go to other places rather than to stay in their native city. On top of that, the argument relies on the assumption that the correlation is straight. What if correlation is inverse? For example, marketing team was efficient enough to bring new visitors to museums and those new visitors were so excited that changed their watching habits toward art programs. Thus, correlation remains unproved.