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.
-
September 12, 2020 at 4:08 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.
I disagree with the opinion that governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics, especially when it comes to the high efficiency of investment and dependency on money of sports.
First of all, athletics are more money-efficient. It’s universally acknowledge that art needs, even greatly depends on talent. In other words, it’s naive to invest in arts and expect a immediate payback. However, sports need unceasing endeavors and thus have a bigger chance of rewarding given equal investment. Take my high school for example, which invests equal money on athletics and arts. They support students to participate in multiple events and expect them to bring back glory. But it turns out sports awards are about five times than that in arts. So under same financial support, sport is a more dependable choice compared with arts.
Secondly, athletics need more financial support. From hiring to training , foods, clothes, coach’s salary, insurances, medicines, and the decoration of stadium all need tons of money. But when it comes to arts, the demands are small. Plus, there is a huge difference about how much investment in the athletics. Low-cost medicine and cheap, inexperienced coaches can stifle young athletics’ promising future, pose great threat on the development of sports. Abundant resources will relieve pressure, secure a better performance.
Admittedly, people urge that art is permanent treasure, hence need more support. I totally agree, but the problem is that the should most of financial resources be allocated to arts? Will it blight if no more abundant money spending on them? History never tell lies. There are many instances of famous poor artists like Van Gogh making difference among hardship. Arts can develop smoothly without the huge support of money. But only with great support can sports make progress, because athletics are all about capacity, and capacity need resources. The more you invest and provide, the better results can be.
Considering the high return ratio and money-dependent attribute of sports, I believe governments should spend more money on athletics.
September 16, 2020 at 9:37 pmI disagree with the opinion [/view ] that
governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics, especially when it comes to the high efficiency of investment and dependency on money of sports.[use your own words to write ]First of all, athletics are[grammatical error ] more money-efficient. It[ unclear pronoun]’s universally acknowledge [ unoriginal writing that makes no sense]that art needs, even greatly depends on talent. In other words, it’s naive to invest in arts and expect a immediate payback. However, sports need unceasing endeavors and thus have a bigger chance of rewarding given equal investment. Take my high school for example, which invests equal money on athletics and arts. They support students to participate in multiple events and expect them to bring back glory. But it turns out sports awards are about five times than that in arts. So under same financial support, sport is a more dependable choice compared with arts.
Secondly, athletics need more financial support. From hiring to training , foods, clothes, coach’s salary, insurances, medicines, and the decoration of stadium all need tons of money. But when it comes to arts, the demands are small. Plus, there is a huge difference about how much investment in the athletics. Low-cost medicine and cheap, inexperienced coaches can stifle young athletics’ promising future, pose great threat on the development of sports. Abundant resources will relieve pressure, secure a better performance.
Admittedly, people urge that art is permanent treasure, hence need more support. I totally agree, but the problem is that the should most of financial resources be allocated to arts? Will it blight if no more abundant money spending on them? History never tell lies. There are many instances of famous poor artists like Van Gogh making difference among hardship. Arts can develop smoothly without the huge support of money. But only with great support can sports make progress, because athletics are all about capacity, and capacity need resources. The more you invest and provide, the better results can be.
Considering the high return ratio and money-dependent attribute of sports, I believe governments should spend more money on athletics.
September 16, 2020 at 9:40 pmPartial revision [ All sentences are problematic]. I will send you screenshots.
September 17, 2020 at 3:26 pmArts and sports are both crucial business greatly influencing the audience. But if given limited governmental funds, I believe the athletics takes priority over the arts.
To begin with, investing on sports is more dependable and efficient. That is, given the same amount of money, athletics is more likely and quickly to generate rewards. Arts depends on talents while sports on endeavors. It’s naive to expect a secured and quick return from investing arts. However, sports is objective-orientated and its probability of success has direct proportion with the efforts made, thus is more reliable. Take my college for example. They allot equal money on sports and arts but their performances are wildly divergent. Although both events are flourishing, the athletics’ awards are five times greater than those of arts.
Secondly, athletics has a bigger demand for funds. The thrive of sports business largely depends on resources like clothes, foods, coaches, incentives, etc. The quality and abundance of such resources are crucial to the development of athletics. Bad provision, inferior teachers can discourage athletics, debase their capacities and potentials. On the other hand, the demand of arts seems not that huge. History never tells lies. There are several celebrated artists, such as Van Gogh, who struggled in poverty during their lifetime but made remarkable achievements. But this is not the case with athletics at all. They would be either fully equipped or quickly eliminated.
People would say arts is the permanent treasure of human intelligence and can cultivate the ability to appreciate the world, which I never negate. But the problem is whether vast investment to arts is worthwhile given the circumstances. Our country encounters a critical phase where more reputation is needed but less money should be spent. For now, government should choose the most efficient and dependable area like athletics. After that, the focus can be gradually shifted to the long-term area such as arts.
In a nutshell, considering the high return ratio, great demand of athletics and current national situation, it is better to allocate more financial support on sports other than arts.
September 17, 2020 at 8:40 pm[ Both ]
Artsand sportsare both crucial business greatly influencing[ could significantly influence ]the audience. But if given limited governmental funds, I believe the [ article error ]athletics takes priority over the[ article error ] arts.To begin with, investing on [preposition error ]sports is more[ lacks comparison/ more .. than ] dependable and efficient[logically incomplete ].
That is, given[ Given ]the[article error ] same amount of money, athletics is more likelyand quicklyto generate rewards [ rapidly ]. [ missing transition word ]Arts depends on talents[unclear word ] while sports on endeavors[ logically incomplete ]. [ missing transition word ]It[ unclear pronoun ]’s naive to expect a secured and quick return from investing [ preposition error ]arts.However, sports[ Sports, however, ] is objective-orientated[unclear ] [ punctuation error ]and its probability[/likelihood ] of success (has direct proportion)[ use a verb instead of noun phrase ] with the efforts [ one has ]made, thus[ grammatical error ] is more reliable[than… ]. Take my college for example[ grammatical error ]. They [ unclear pronoun ]allot equal money on[wrong preposition ] sports and arts [ punctuation error ]but their[ unclear pronoun ] performances are wildly divergent. Although both events[ word choice ] are flourishing, the athletics’ awards are five times greater than those of arts.Secondly, athletics has a bigger demand for funds. The thrive [ word form error ]of sports business largely depends on resources like [ informal ]clothes, foods, coaches, incentives, etc. The quality and abundance of such resources are crucial to the development of athletics. Bad provision, [punctuation error ]inferior teachers can discourage athletics, [ punctuation error ]debase their capacities and potentials[word form error ]. On the other hand, the demand of [ preposition error ]arts seems not that huge. History never tells lies. There are several celebrated artists, such as Van Gogh, who struggled in poverty during their lifetime but made remarkable achievements. But this is not the case with athletics at all. They[ unclear pronoun ] would be either fully equipped or quickly eliminated.
People would[Some critics may ] say arts is the permanent treasure of human intelligence and [ unparalleled ]can cultivate the ability to appreciate the world, which I never negate. But the problem is whether vast investment to [ preposition error ]arts is worthwhile given (the circumstances)[ unclear ]. Our country encounters a critical phase[ wrong word ] where (more reputation is needed but less money should be spent)[ unclear ]. For now, government should choose the (most efficient and dependable)[ unclear ] area like athletics. After that, the focus can be gradually shifted tothelong-term area such as arts[ areas such as arts that demand long-term investment ].In a nutshell[ In conclusion ], considering the high return ratio, great [vague word ]demand of [ unclear pronoun ]athletics and [ article error ]current national situation,it is better to allocate more financial support on sports other than arts.[funding sports makes a better sense. ]
