Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. TOEFL Writing Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

  • 729503733@qq.com
    University: South China University of Technology
    Nationality: China
    December 21, 2020 at 3:19 pm

    Governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams. 

    To choose arts or to choose athletics is something of a dilemma to the public because they are often confused by the seemingly good qualities of athletics, and neglect the genuinely good aspects of arts. Arts has some good features such as enhancing creativity and being highly cosmopolitan.

    Funding in the field of arts could improve the creativity of the public. As we all know, arts is a creativity-consuming field. In order to become artists, people need to force themselves to look the ordinary items from a new prospective, which means to create a brand-new view toward substance. In this process, people are digging out their potency of creativity. Namely, they gradually acquire creativity. If government funds this activity, more people would participate in it. Therefore, the creativity level of the public would finally increase.

    Besides, if government subsidizes arts, it would benefit more people. This relates to the difference between standards of arts and athletics. The standard of athletics might be “faster, higher and stronger”. So limited does it sounds like. Because number of people who are faster, higher and stronger might be small, which means that athletics is a game for people look like that. That might make people kind of disappointed. Nonetheless, the standard of art is only one–creativity. No matter what kind of people you are, you can participate in the creative work. In this point, art loves are more cosmopolitan than that of athletics. Consequently, government should finance arts.

    Granted, people are driven to believe that athletics could make people healthy. However, as proverb says that “every coin has two sides”. Although athletics benefits people in health, at the meantime there lies intrinsic negative characteristic in it such as it might hurt people’s self-esteem. Some psychologists maintain that when encountering other stronger people in doing sports, people might easily get unconfident. However, when the same situation comes in arts, people could readily understand and deal with because they know they could learn from each other and make progress. Therefore, after noticing the invisible benefits of arts, we can find choosing art is more convincing.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    January 10, 2021 at 2:46 am

    To choose arts or (to choose) [  redundant] athletics (is something of a dilemma)[wordy  ] to the public because they[ unclear pronoun ] are often confused by[ passive ] the seemingly (good qualities of athletics)[unclear  ], and neglect[ parallelism issue ] the genuinely good aspects of arts. Arts has some good features such as (enhancing creativity)[ unclear ] and being highly cosmopolitan[ unclear ].

    Funding in the field of arts could improve the creativity of the public. As we all know, arts is a creativity-consuming field. In order to become artists, people need to force themselves to look the ordinary items from a new prospective, which means to create a brand-new view toward substance. In this process, people are digging out their potency of creativity. Namely, they gradually acquire creativity. If government funds this activity, more people would participate in it. Therefore, the creativity level of the public would finally increase.

    Besides, if government subsidizes arts, it would benefit more people. This relates to the difference between standards of arts and athletics. The standard of athletics might be “faster, higher and stronger”. So limited does it sounds like. Because number of people who are faster, higher and stronger might be small, which means that athletics is a game for people look like that. That might make people kind of disappointed. Nonetheless, the standard of art is only one–creativity. No matter what kind of people you are, you can participate in the creative work. In this point, art loves are more cosmopolitan than that of athletics. Consequently, government should finance arts.

    Granted, people are driven to believe that athletics could make people healthy. However, as proverb says that “every coin has two sides”. Although athletics benefits people in health, at the meantime there lies intrinsic negative characteristic in it such as it might hurt people’s self-esteem. Some psychologists maintain that when encountering other stronger people in doing sports, people might easily get unconfident. However, when the same situation comes in arts, people could readily understand and deal with because they know they could learn from each other and make progress. Therefore, after noticing the invisible benefits of arts, we can find choosing art is more convincing.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    January 10, 2021 at 2:50 am

    Partial revision [ essay contains lots of grammatical errors, logical confusions, factual inconsistencies, pronoun issues., etc.]