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.

  • CrapBag
    University: United International College(ZHU HAI)
    Nationality: china
    June 3, 2022 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. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

    In most countries around the world, the government usually spends more money in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams than in support of the arts. Nowadays, more and more voices appear to change this kind of situation. I consider myself one of those voices, as I agree that governments should spend more money on the arts.

    To begin with, supporting the arts can produce some long-term benefits for the culture of this country; meanwhile supporting athletics can barely leave some long-term outcomes. For example, those beautiful drawings and sculptures in the Nation Museum of China have been symbols of China the country. Those legacies have been made for more than hundreds of years but are still alive as a part of China’s history and culture. Some medals in Olympics can never replace the value brought by those artworks. Those achievements of arts may benefit the country for more than hundreds of years.

    Also, it should be noticed that the athletics of a country are not as influential as they used to be. Maybe 100 or 200 years ago, the grades of the athletics of a country can stand for the force and the influence of this country, but for this age we are currently living in, things have changed. There are much more factors that can illustrate the situation and the force of a country, for instance, the number of people using smartphones may be a better statistic data than this country’s number of medals in the Olympics. Governments spend so much money to support those Olympics teams because they try to show their power to other countries. Since the athletics of a country now can only stand for a little aspect of the power of this country, they should not continue to cost so much money and resources anymore.

    Time has changed, athletics’ value is now less than the arts’, and governments must commit some actions to be adapted to this new situation.

    June 6, 2022 at 2:58 am

    In most countries around the world, the[ article error ] government[ word form error ] usually spends more money in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams than in support of the[ article error ] arts. Nowadays, more and more voices appear to change this kind of situation. I consider myself one of those voices, as I agree that governments should spend more money on the arts.

    To begin with, supporting the arts can produce some long-term benefits for the culture of this country; meanwhile supporting athletics can barely leave some long-term outcomes. For example, those beautiful drawings and sculptures in the Nation Museum of China have been symbols of China the country. Those legacies have been made for more than hundreds of years but are still alive as a part of China’s history and culture. Some medals in Olympics can never replace the value brought by those artworks. Those achievements of arts may benefit the country for more than hundreds of years.

    Also, it should be noticed that the athletics of a country are not as influential as they used to be. Maybe 100 or 200 years ago, the grades of the athletics of a country can stand for the force and the influence of this country, but for this age we are currently living in, things have changed. There are much more factors that can illustrate the situation and the force of a country, for instance, the number of people using smartphones may be a better statistic data than this country’s number of medals in the Olympics. Governments spend so much money to support those Olympics teams because they try to show their power to other countries. Since the athletics of a country now can only stand for a little aspect of the power of this country, they should not continue to cost so much money and resources anymore.

    Time has changed, athletics’ value is now less than the arts’, and governments must commit some actions to be adapted to this new situation.

    June 6, 2022 at 3:02 am

    Partial revision [ fix all article errors in your essay.]

    CrapBag
    University: United International College(ZHU HAI)
    Nationality: china
    June 7, 2022 at 7:26 am

    In most countries, governments usually spend more money in support of athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams than in support of arts. Nowadays, more voices appear to change this kind of situation. I consider myself one of those voices, as I agree that governments should spend more money on the arts.

    To begin with, supporting arts can produce some long-term benefits for the culture of this country; meanwhile supporting athletics can barely leave some long-term outcomes. For example, those beautiful drawings and sculptures in the Nation Museum of China have been symbols of China the country. Those legacies have been made for more than hundreds of years but are still alive as a part of China’s history and culture. Some medals in Olympics can never replace the value brought by those artworks. Those achievements of arts may benefit the country for more than hundreds of years.

    Also, it should be noticed that the athletics of a country are not as influential as they used to be. Maybe 100 or 200 years ago, the grades of the athletics of a country can stand for the force and the influence of this country, but for this age we are currently living in, things have changed. There are much more factors that can illustrate the situation and the force of a country, for instance, the number of people using smartphones may be a better statistic data than this country’s number of medals in the Olympics. Governments used to spend so much money to support those Olympics teams because they try to show their power to other countries. Since the athletics of a country now can only stand for a little aspect of the power of this country, they should not continue to cost so much money and resources anymore.

    Time has changed, athletics’ value is now less than arts’, and governments must commit some actions to be adapted to this new situation.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by CrapBag.
    June 7, 2022 at 1:31 pm

    In most countries, governments usually spend more money in support of [ supporting  ]athletics such as state-sponsored Olympic teams than in support of arts. Nowadays, more voices appear to change (this kind of situation)[ unclear  ]. I consider myself one of those voices, as I agree that governments should spend more money on the arts.

    To begin with, supporting arts can (produce some long-term benefits for the culture of this country)[ wordy/promote cultural prosperity  ]; meanwhile [punctuation error   ]supporting athletics [ ,however,  ]can barely leave[  /lead to/result in ] some long-term outcomes. For example, those beautiful drawings and sculptures in the Nation Museum of China have been symbols of China the country.[ unclear  ] Those legacies have been made[unnecessary passive   ] for more than hundreds of years but are still alive as a[article error   ] part of China’s history and culture. Some medals in Olympics can never replace the value[word form error   ] brought by (those artworks)[word form error   ]. Those (achievements of arts)[wordy, unclear   ] may benefit the country for more than hundreds of years[ unclear  ].

    Also, it should be noticed that the athletics[ word form error  ] of a country are not as influential as they used to be. Maybe 100 or 200 years ago, the grades of the athletics of a country can stand for the force and the influence of this country, but for this age we are currently living in, things have changed[ wordy, unclear sentence full of useless words “the, the, and, for…”  ]. There are much more [More   ]factors that can illustrate the situation and the force of a country, for instance, the number of people using smartphones may be a better statistic data than this country’s number of medals in the Olympics.[ lengthy, unclear sentence  ] Governments[ sweeping statement  ] used to spend so much money to support[ grammatical error  ] those Olympics teams because they try[grammatical error   ] to show their power to other countries. Since the[ article error  ] athletics of a country now can only stand for a little aspect of the power of this country, they should not continue to cost so much money and resources anymore.

    Time has changed, [ punctuation error  ]athletics’ value is now less than arts’, and governments must commit[wrong word   ] some actions to be adapted[ unnecessary passive  ] to this new situation.

    June 7, 2022 at 1:45 pm

    Final revision