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.

Someone, please check my notebook note http://classic.italki.com/entry/667002

http://classic.italki.com/entry/667002

Olympic Foods will minimize costs and thus maximize profits. ha-ha The report states that Olympic Food management will minimize costs and maximize profits. Nevertheless, one could hardly agree that Olympic Food will succeed with cost reduction based on provided arguments. First, the suggestion that all organizations learn how to do things better and become more efficient over time is preposterous. Competition today is more severe than it was yesterday. New companies with breakthrough ideas come to the market every day and squeeze out the old-fashioned ones; new technologies appear on a regular basis. And if a company wants to be efficient, it should adopt new technologies and ideas faster than competitors do. Second, the report refers to film processing industry as a benchmark for cost reduction. Nevertheless, provided numbers prove otherwise. If one recalculates cost per day for film processing and compare the numbers, he will see that cost per day increased from 10 to 20 cents. Provided numbers are ambiguous and require corrections. On top of that, author fails to explain what specific tools were used for cost reduction. Third, the author of the report assumes that cost reduction principles are the same for food and film processing but does not to provide any information on what those principles are. If the author presented the cost structure for both industries that would prove that possible cost reduction principles are identical. As a conclusion, there are too many weak points in the argument, so it is difficult to take the promise of cost reduction and profit maximization seriously, unless some further clarifications and evidences surface in 3 mentioned above issues.

In any situation a good follower is more important than a good leader The allegation that a good follower is always better than a good leader is very controversial from my point of view. Can you imagine what a group of obedient followers without a leader will do in a critical situation? Think of real followers who are not used to take a responsibility, who avoid to make a decision, who lack charisma to convince others to follow. In best case scenario, a group without a leader will reach a basic decision. Nevertheless, the speed of taking the decision will be deteriorated. But time is of the essence. On the other hand, I believe that society inhabited only with leaders cannot live in stability. Remember the experiment described in "Brave new world" by Aldous Huxley: an island inhabited with alphas, an in-born leaders who are able to take responsibility, to make right decisions and to do intellectual job, turned to state of constant riots and revolutions. In-born leaders refused to obey and to do dirty jobs. Thus, a group of leaders without those who ready to follow and execute is the same useless as a group of followers without a leader. As a result, there is no black and white in real life and any situation demands both good followers and good leaders do their respective jobs properly.