Could Someone please help me evaluate this analytical argument essay I wrote. I've always been terrible at writing and have been practicing so wanted to see how I did overall.

The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.
"When the Grandview Symphony was established ten years ago, the city of Grandview agreed to provide the symphony with annual funding until the symphony became self-sustaining. Two years ago, the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, who has been able to attract high-profile guest musicians to perform with the symphony. Since then, private contributions to the symphony have tripled and attendance at the symphony's outdoor summer concert series has reached record highs. Now that the symphony has succeeded in finding an audience, the city can eliminate its funding of the symphony."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted



In a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview, it is stated that the Grandview Symphony has succeeded in acquiring an audience and no longer needs funding from the city. The budget planner has come to this conclusion based on private contributions being tripled and the outdoor summer concert attendance has reached record highs. However, the argument made in this memo is very flimsy and hinge on three weak unstated assumptions.

The author assumes that the internationally known conductor is known in the region that the city of Grandview is located and is very popular. Maybe this conductor is not well known in this region as he is known internationally. The conductor might be internationally known in cities, but maybe this region is rural and has no way of knowing who this conductor is. It is also possible that even if the conductor is known by the people in that region, he or she is not very popular. Unless the city of Grandview takes a survey from the region with a large sample size to find out if the conductor is known by the people and popular this assumption will leave the argument very weak.

Furthermore, the author assumes that private donation that have been tripled will cover the necessary funds to keep the Grandview Symphony self-sustaining. Maybe even with the private donations being tripled it is still not enough to keep the Grandview Symphony self-sustaining. It is also possible that the donations being tripled was a one time event and could easily end without a moments notice. Without knowing if these private donations will be enough or even if they will be continuous to keep the Grandview Symphony self-sustaining it leaves the argument made by the author very weak.

Finally, the author assumes that the record high attendance for the symphony’s outdoor summer concert series will continue through out the year making it self sustaining. Maybe this event is a one time ordeal and thus just because there are record high attendance now doesn’t mean the high attendance continued throughout the year. It is also possible that the attendance was high because the tickets being sold for this year’s outdoor summer series event were reduced drastically causing an increase in attendance, but not necessarily an increase in sustainability. This assumption has several flaws making the argument very weak.

In conclusion the argument made in this memo is not cogent as it stands because of its reliance on these unstated assumptions. If the author of this memo is able to provide further evidence that these assumptions are true by performing a thorough analysis then it will make it possible to better evaluate these assumptions. Without the necessary evidence the author will no be able to persuade the city to eliminate its funding of the Grandview Symphony.