Governments should not spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. TOEFL Writing Governments should not spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams.

  • kkming
    University: Tianjin University
    Nationality: Chinese
    November 19, 2020 at 10:39 am

    Governments should not spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams.

    When it comes to whether to provide more financial support to art than to athletics, there always are some people arguing that government should provide more support to art, while others disapprove. From my perspective, I indeed think the former proposal is wrong. There need more deeply thought about this issue.

    There is no such judgement that art is more important than athletics. Though art does inspire human a lot on all aspects of society. It could not directly lead to conclusion that art is more vital to human than athletics. Since athletics always pursues higher, faster, stronger, human truly benefits from this positive goal. In some situations, athletics could offer more directly interests to the whole country and civilians. For example, In the Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008, which is the most splendid and lavish game than ever, athletics from all over the world competed together to get higher grades among the human history. If who got a gold medal, it is not only for him to be honorable, but also led the country the winner represents got respect from all over the world. The delight of winning would also pull economic flourish, therefore, through such wins, all countries could benefit from it.  In this term, how could people endorse that governments should offer more aids to art?

    If the governments do support more on art than athletics, it means that country has not pay enough attention to athletics. We still have to focus on more practical fields such as economic, sports games, living horizontal and so on.  Nowadays, mainstream value system deems that if a country did not get enough gold medal, it could not be considered as a powerful country. In other words , a country could improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

    So, points I just described explicitly express which opinion I lean on. Though art seems to be more vital to human, it is more wisely to think from country’s angle. For more benefit a country can get, we should aid more on athletics.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    November 20, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    Score: ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 30% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. Lengthy paragraphs. Restrict each paragraph to 90 words.
    3. Article errors
    4. Spelling errors
    5. Do not just restate the question in your introduction, establish your argument instead.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    kkming
    University: Tianjin University
    Nationality: Chinese
    November 22, 2020 at 10:17 am

    When it comes to whether to provide more financial support to art than to athletics, there always are some people arguing that governments should offer more support to art, while others disapprove. From my perspective, I prefer that the former proposal is wrong. There need more sophisticated thought about this issue.

    There is no such judgment that art is more important than athletics. Though art does inspire humans a lot in all fabrics of society. It could not come to conclusion that this field is more vital to humans than athletics. Sports games always pursue the positive goal that achieving higher, faster and stronger. It is well known that humans indeed benefit from this goal. In some situations, athletics could offer more directly interests to the whole country and civilians. For example, In the Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008, the most splendid and lavish game ever, athletics all over the world competed together to get higher grades in humans’ history. If someone got a gold medal, there is no doubt that he was honorable. Further, the country the winner represented would receive respects from other countries. The delight of winning would pull economic flourish, through such wins, all countries could benefit from it.  In this term, how could people endorse that governments should offer more aids to art?

    If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means that country has not paid enough attention to athletics. Well, countries couldn’t get any visible gains.Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on.  Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals . In other words, a nation could improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

    So, the points I just described express which opinion I lean. Though art seems to be more vital to humans, it is more practical to think from the country’s angle. For more benefit a country can get, we should aid more on athletics.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    November 23, 2020 at 6:52 pm

    Score: 59.3

    Issues:

    1. About 15% of the sentences are passive. Convert some of them into their active counterparts.
    2. Lengthy paragraphs. Restrict each paragraph to 90 words.
    3. Verb form errors
    4. Preposition errors

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.

    kkming
    University: Tianjin University
    Nationality: Chinese
    November 24, 2020 at 9:31 am

    When it comes to whether to provide more financial support to art than to athletics, there always are some people arguing that governments should offer more support to art, while others disapprove. From my perspective, I prefer that the former proposal is wrong. There need more sophisticated thoughts about this issue.

    Aiding more on athletics bring visible profits to country. For example, In the Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008, the most splendid and lavish game ever, athletics all over the world competed together to surpass best records. If someone get a gold medal, there is no doubt that he is honorable. Further, the country that winners represented will receive respects from other countries. The delight of winning can pull economic flourish, through such wins, all countries will benefit from it. In this term, how could people endorse more aids to art?

    On the contrast, supporting more on arts does no use to development of a country. If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means the governments have not paid enough attention to athletics. With the fact that countries don’t get any visible gains, their progress is slow. Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on. Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals. In other words, a nation can improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

    Though art does inspire humans a lot in fabric of society. It does not come to conclusion that this field is more vital to humans than athletics. Sports games always pursue higher, faster and stronger. And humans indeed benefit from this positive goal and foster healthier lifestyle.

    So, the points I just described express which opinion I lean. Though art seems to be vital to humans, it is more practical to think from the country’s angle. For more benefits a country can get, we should aid more on athletics.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    November 25, 2020 at 11:10 am

    Partial revision (refer to previous suggestions) – essay needs significant revision

    When it comes to whether to provide more financial support to art than to athletics, there always are s Some people argue arguing that governments should offer more support to art, while others want to fund athletics instead disapprove. From my perspective, I prefer that the former proposal is wrong. There need more sophisticated thoughts about this issue. (Rewrite these sentences, clearly state which side you support and why)

    Aiding more on Funding athletics brings considerable visible profits to the country. For example, In the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games held in Beijing in 2008, the most splendid and lavish game ever, put China on the map in the athletic world and showed the power of Chinese society athletics all over the world competed together to surpass best records. If someone won get a gold medal, there is no doubt that he is honorable. Further, the country that wins ners represented will be respected by receive respects from other countries. The delight of winning can pull economic flourish, through such wins, all countries will benefit from it. In this term, how could people endorse more aids to art? (Rewrite)

    On the contrast, supporting more on arts does no use to development of a country. If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means the governments have not paid enough attention to athletics. With the fact that countries don’t get any visible gains, their progress is slow. Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on. Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals. In other words, a nation can improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

    Though art does inspire humans a lot in fabric of society. It does not come to conclusion that this field is more vital to humans than athletics. Sports games always pursue higher, faster and stronger. And humans indeed benefit from this positive goal and foster healthier lifestyle.

    So, the points I just described express which opinion I lean. Though art seems to be vital to humans, it is more practical to think from the country’s angle. For more benefits a country can get, we should aid more on athletics.

    kkming
    University: Tianjin University
    Nationality: Chinese
    November 27, 2020 at 12:03 pm

    Some people argue governments should offer more support to art, while others want to fund athletics instead. From my perspective, I prefer to support more on athletics. I am going to elaborate this point in following paragraphs.

     

    Funding athletics brings considerable profits to the country. For example,the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games,the most splendid and lavish ever, put China on the map in the athletic world and showed the power of Chinese society. If someone won a gold medal, there is no doubt that he is honorable. Further, the country that wins will be respected by other countries. Thus, more business investments can focus on this country. The country would end up with enhancing economic development. In the terms of profits, funding more on athletics is wiser.

     

    Moreover, supporting more on arts is of no use to country’s advance. If the governments support more on art than athletics, it means the governments have not paid enough attention to athletics. With the fact that countries don’t get any visible gain, their national power improves slowly. Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economic, sports games, standard of living, and so on. Nowadays, the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals. In other words, a nation can improve its international status by supporting more on athletics.

     

    More aid on athletics also in lead people to put more stress on exercise. Nowadays people are taking a busy life. There is less time for them to balance the work and life, not to mention their health. So more fund on athletics show the decision of governments to appeal people take their health seriously. Thus, there can’t be so many deaths called by less exercise.

     

    So, the points I just described express which opinion I prefer. Supporting more on athletics not only make considerable profits for governments but also lead people to attach importance to health. In short, funding more on athletics is better.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    December 4, 2020 at 11:11 am

    Some people argue governments should offer more financial support to art, while others want to fund athletics instead. From my perspective, I prefer to support more on athletics more because it will bring more money and glory to the country than art. I am going to elaborate this point in following paragraphs.

     

    Funding athletics brings considerable profits to the country. For example, the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, the most splendid and lavish ever, put China on the map in the athletic world and showed the power of Chinese society. If someone won a gold medal, there is no doubt that he is honorable. Further, the country that wins will be respected by other countries, . T thus, more businesses will invest in the country investments can focus on this country. The winning country then enhances would end up with enhancing economic development. So, in the terms of profits, funding more on increasing funding for athletics is wiser.

     

    Moreover, increasing the financial support towards the supporting more on arts is of no use to a country’s progress advance. If the governments support more on art more than athletics, it means the governments has not paid enough attention to athletics. Art does not increase the national profile of a country With the fact that countries don’t get any visible gain, their national power improves slowly. Thus, the governments should focus more on practical fields such as economics, sports games, and standard of living, and so on. Nowadays, a country needs to perform well in the Olympics to maintain its national profile the mainstream value deems that a country isn’t considered a powerful country without enough gold medals. In other words, a nation can improve its international status by funding supporting more on athletics.

     

    More aid Spending more on athletics also in leads people to put more emphasis stress on exercise. Nowadays, people lead busy lives, and are taking a busy life. there is less time for them to balance the work and life, not to mention their health. So more funds on athletics shows the decision of governments is appealing to appeal people to take their health seriously. Thus, there can’t be so many deaths called by less exercise.

     

    So, the points I just described express which opinion I prefer. In conclusion, financially supporting more on athletics more will not only make considerable profits for governments but also lead people to attach importance to health. In short, funding more on athletics is better.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    December 5, 2020 at 2:57 am

    Final revision