Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

  • 1585596474
    University: Northeastern University
    Nationality: China
    October 14, 2020 at 3:32 am

    Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
    Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

    It is no doubt that arts can set our mind free and encourage us. The government funding is always important to arts, but some people think that the funding can cause discrepancy to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donation can fund the artists to create more arts without restrictions, and make arts more accessible to public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former.

    First, artists can spend their whole time and energy creating fine arts with the government funding. There is less controversy which a few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that they need to find another work to get sufficient money to pay the living cost. As a result, they may not have enough time to create an exquisite art which can provoke public spirit, or they just create arts which are only aimed to make profit. Eventually, there may be not fabulous arts which can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, the government needs to fund the artists so that they can create more exquisite arts without worrying the financial problems.

    Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to the art museums and exhibitions with the government donation. Most people may be not interested in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why the art museums and exhibitions cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, the entry fees to those facilities will be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to have a look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability of comprehend the meaning behind the arts. However, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheaper or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and exhibitions and have chances to understand the meaning.

    some people may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all kinds of arts, and it can lead to discrepancy. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all kinds of arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which is the symbol of a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

    In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former, because the government financial assistance can help artists to create more arts to provoke public mind without worrying financial problems, and more people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and public can benefit from this as a whole.

    1585596474
    University: Northeastern University
    Nationality: China
    October 14, 2020 at 3:32 am

    It is no doubt that arts can set our mind free and encourage us. The government funding is always important to arts, but some people think that the funding can cause discrepancy to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donation can fund the artists to create more arts without restrictions, and make arts more accessible to public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former.

    First, artists can spend their whole time and energy creating fine arts with the government funding. There is less controversy which a few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that they need to find another work to get sufficient money to pay the living cost. As a result, they may not have enough time to create an exquisite art which can provoke public spirit, or they just create arts which are only aimed to make profit. Eventually, there may be not fabulous arts which can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, the government needs to fund the artists so that they can create more exquisite arts without worrying the financial problems.

    Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to the art museums and exhibitions with the government donation. Most people may be not interested in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why the art museums and exhibitions cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, the entry fees to those facilities will be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to have a look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability of comprehend the meaning behind the arts. However, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheaper or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and exhibitions and have chances to understand the meaning.

    some people may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all kinds of arts, and it can lead to discrepancy. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all kinds of arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which is the symbol of a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

    In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former, because the government financial assistance can help artists to create more arts to provoke public mind without worrying financial problems, and more people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and public can benefit from this as a whole.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    October 15, 2020 at 2:19 pm

    Score: ungraded

    Issues:

    1. About 35% of the sentences exceed 20 words. Shorten/split them.
    2. Article errors
    3. Preposition errors
    4. Singular versus plural errors

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

    1585596474
    University: Northeastern University
    Nationality: China
    October 17, 2020 at 8:37 am

    It is no doubt that arts can set our mind free and encourage us. Government funding is always important to arts, but some think that the funding can cause discrepancies to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donations can fund artists to create more arts without restrictions and make arts more accessible to the public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former.

    First, artists can devote their whole time and energy to create arts with government funding. There is less controversy that few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that artists need to find other jobs to get salaries to pay the living cost. As a result, artists may not have enough time to create an exquisite art which can inspire public spirit, or they just create arts which are only aimed to make a profit. Eventually, there may be no fabulous arts that can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, government needs to fund the artists, and they could have chances to create more exquisite arts without worrying financial problems.

    Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to art museums with government donations. Most people might not have interest in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why art museums cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, the entry fees to those facilities might be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability to comprehend the meaning behind the arts. On the contrary, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheap or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and have chances to understand the meaning.

    Some may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all arts, and unfair donations can lead to discrepancies. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which symbolizes a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

    In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former. That is because government financial assistance can help artists to create more arts to inspire public mind without worrying financial problems, and more people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and the public can benefit from this as a whole.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    October 19, 2020 at 9:26 pm

    Check my feedback via WeChat

    1585596474
    University: Northeastern University
    Nationality: China
    October 21, 2020 at 10:49 am

    It is no doubt that arts can set our mind free and encourage us. Government funding is always important to arts, but some think that the funding can cause discrepancies to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donations can fund artists to create more arts without restrictions and make arts more accessible to the public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former.

    First, artists can devote their whole time and energy to create arts with government funding. There is less controversy that few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that artists need to find other jobs to get salaries to pay the living cost. As a result, artists may not have enough time to create an exquisite art that can inspire public spirit or create arts that only aim to make a profit. Eventually, there may be no fabulous arts that can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, government needs to fund the artists, and they could have chances to create more exquisite arts without worrying financial problems.

    Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to art museums with government donations. Most people might not have interest in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why art museums cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, those facilities’ entry fees might be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability to comprehend the meaning behind the arts. On the contrary, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheap or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and have chances to understand the meaning.

    Some may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all arts, and unfair donations can lead to discrepancies. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which symbolizes a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

    In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former. That is because government financial assistance can help artists create more arts to inspire public minds without worrying financial problems. More people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and the public can benefit from this as a whole.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    October 21, 2020 at 4:07 pm

    It is no doubt that arts can set our mind [word form error  ] free and encourage us [to do interesting things  ]. [lack coherence from the last sentence  ]Government funding is always important to arts, but some [ observers/critics ] think that the funding can cause discrepancies [wrong word  ] to arts and make some arts less important. However, in my viewpoint, government donations [wrong word  ] can fund [repetition  ]artists to create more arts (without restrictions) [ unclear ] and make arts more accessible to the public. Thus, my opinion more closely aligns with the former [unclear  ].

    First, artists can devote their whole time and energy to create arts with government funding. There is less controversy that few artists can sustain themselves without government funding. Not every artist can succeed to create a beautiful painting which can make them famous and rich. It means that artists need to find other jobs to get salaries to pay the living cost. As a result, artists may not have enough time to create an exquisite art that can inspire public spirit or create arts that only aim to make a profit. Eventually, there may be no fabulous arts that can open public horizons to a new world, and the academic field of art suffers a lot. Hence, government needs to fund the artists, and they could have chances to create more exquisite arts without worrying financial problems.

    Second, all ordinary people can have free or cheap access to art museums with government donations. Most people might not have interest in arts, because they cannot comprehend the meaning behind arts. That is why art museums cannot attract many visitors. If the government did not give affluent financial support, those facilities’ entry fees might be higher. As a result, people may have less opportunities to look at exquisite arts, and it can deteriorate their ability to comprehend the meaning behind the arts. On the contrary, with the government funding, the entry fees to these facilities can be cheap or free. In the end, more people are likely to go to art museums and have chances to understand the meaning.

    Some may argue that government financial support is not always an even distribution to all arts, and unfair donations can lead to discrepancies. I agree with the argument. However, it is not the case that all arts are equally important. In fact, government always gives more funding to the traditional arts which symbolizes a country’s history. As traditional arts receive more funding, more people can be proud of their own country’s history. Thus, it strengthens my opinion.

    In short, my opinion closely aligns with the former. That is because government financial assistance can help artists create more arts to inspire public minds without worrying financial problems. More people can have easy access to the art museums. Eventually, the academic field of art and the public can benefit from this as a whole.

    Administrator
    University: University of Wisconsin
    October 21, 2020 at 4:12 pm

    Partial revision. [All sentences are problematic.]