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.

None of the arguments the developers make seems particularly controversial on first glance. It is plausible to lend money to the developers, because the Jazz Club will be a successful business. However, the argument is contingent on a series of logical flaws. Before drawing the conclusion, the developers should provide more specific evidences.

First, the developers say that jazz is extremely popular in Monroe, because there were 100000 people in the jazz festival. However, they do not provide the raw number of the local attendees. were all the 100000 people from Monroe or cities near Monroe? Maybe, there just were 100 locals going to the festival, or none of the attendees was resident of Monroe. Allowing locals went to this festival, what was the proportion of locals? If only 10% of the attendees were locals, the jazz club may not succeed in Monroe and is likely to be bankrupt. Without the specific number of the locals who attended the festival last year, we cannot assure that jazz club is a successful business.

Second, developers also tell us that there is no jazz club in Monroe and some famous musicians live here. It is very weird to say that jazz is popular in Monroe, but there is no any jazz club. Perhaps, the developers themselves reckon merely jazz is popular in Monroe, and few residents are likely to listen to jazz. Allowing jazz is popular in Monroe, the nearest club may be a successful one, and every local loves to go there. can the developers make sure their jazz club can take a bit of the market share? If the answer is no, then we cannot lend money to them. As for the famous musicians, they choose Monroe as home, because the nature landscape in Monroe is beautiful, or there is no one can bother them. Besides, there is no manifest correlation between successful business and local famous musicians. Hence, developers need to offer more information to convince us.

Third, Is the Jazz Nightly the only radio station in Monroe? If it is the case, then it must be the highest-rated radio. Without the proportional statistic about the market share of the Jazz Nightly, developers’ argument is not persuasive enough. Besides, is the nationwide study representative? Perhaps, it is another case in Monroe which few locals do spend such amount money on jazz entertainment. Even though it is the case in Monroe, it does not mean every dollar goes to the jazz club.

In short, we do not have reliable evidences and further information to ascertain that the jazz club will be successful in Monroe. In order to make the recommendation more convincing, the developers should provide more specific evidences to persuade us.

Along with history, humans always gather together to create communities. With time passing by, some communities have grown into some major cities and accumulated a quantity of fortune and cultures. Those cities are important to countries and the modern world as a whole, because they hold a majority of materials. Besides, those cities also become obvious indicators of characteristics of a society. Thus, I agree with the statement above.

First, by studying the major cities, one can learn the financial situation of the society. Due to cumulate materials, the major cities of a society have more resources to develop so that they can become easily ever-increasing size. With the cumulative fortune, the major cities could attract a lot of elites so that cities can become far more prosperous. For example, Shenzhen, the first industrialized city in China, accumulated a great quantity of fortune after the Financial Reform. Since then Shenzhen has developed at a fast pace and attracted a lot of elites to start new fields of business. That is the reason why Shenzhen has the most cutting-edge companies in China. What is more, the financial policies attract some foreign companies and banks which forms a good financial loop. One can learn the financial situation of a society by its economic system.

Second, the major cities represent a society’s culture. The major cities may not be home to all the significant cultures, but one can have sight of some cultures. That is because major cities have large population. Residents of major cities may come from all over the country and they cause a culture to meet others. One can understand the value of society by studying the culture through the museums. For example, there are many museums in major cities around the world, such as London, Paris. These museums always have a great collection of antiques and paintings. These works of art can illustrate the intelligence of the race and the value of the society.

Third, due to the gathering elites, fortune and cultures, there are always political centers in major cities. By learning the political format of the major cities, one can understand how politicians work in a society. For example, Beijing, the capital of China, has all the paramount political administrations. Besides, there always be a political conference every year to discuss policies to keep governments functioning effectively.

In short, as I mentioned before, the major cities of a country are the center of finance, cultures and policy. These major cities are the most representative indicator of a country. Hence, one must study its major cities to understand the characteristics of a society.

In the course of the history, human beings have developed a lot of technologies to overcome the challenge of the nature in order to make a living. Even though we have some well-developed tools, still there are some challenges originating from the environment. That is the reason we still need to think for ourselves. Thus, I disagree with the statement.

In the past, our ancient ancestors made good use of the animals’ feather to cover their body so that they could get through the cold winter, but they did not stop for looking warmer lives. They found out how to set fire up and used the fire to make the place brighter and warmer. Besides, they used the fire to make the food more delicious and nutritional. However, they still looked for a better place to live. That was why they learned how to change a cave into a simple house and used the logs to build a shelter. That means our ancestors still consider to live in a better place.

Nowadays, although we have better houses to live in and cutting-edge technologies to make our lives easier, we still need to confront with problems. Those cars bring our convenience, but also bring the carbon emission and pollution at the same time. It is a big problem that we are facing today. Our researchers and scientists are now working all the time to deal with it. They have come up a lot of solutions and technologies to reduce the air pollution and carbon emission. That is the reason today our air quality become fresher and environment become better. If they stop considering to deal with the pollution, our world undoubtedly would become worse and more polluted. That is the consequence of their consideration.

However, today we still have some incurable diseases and epidemics. But our medical researchers are trying their best to find the cures and medicines to those diseases. Perhaps in the near future there will be medication for all the diseases which we cannot cope with now. In the end, we are no longer live in the fear of these horrible diseases. It might be the consequence of what they contemplate and come up with.

In short, as I mentioned above, human beings have developed a bunch of solutions for the challenges come from the nature. However, we still try our best to deal with some lasting problems to make the world a better place. Therefore, the ability of human beings to think for ourselves are improving at a constant pace, which is opposed to the claim stated above.

Nowadays, technology is developing at a fast pace, and the media can take advantage of this so that quantities of scandals get disseminated. Normally, people want to know what recently happen around them and the fastest means is searching scandals on media. Thus, I agree with the claim stated above.

Traditionally, people can update information around them by watching TV and reading newspapers, because they are authoritative ways to get access to the information. However, people are more likely to searching scandals on media to acquire information with the fast development of Internet technology. That is because human beings need to absorb information and work at the fast pace to keep up with the development of technology. As a result of this, they do not have enough time for getting access to those authoritative ways to obtain information. It leads to that they prefer to search scandals on social media, where a lots people discuss the latest news. Thanks to searching scandals, people spend less time getting access to information which they are concern about. The speaker or reformer can not focus public attention on problems like scandals do.

Besides the convenience of acquiring information, Scandals focus on the description of the process instead of the result. Generally, human beings prefer to know the process of how things take place instead of the consequence. That is why action movies always have a large number of descriptions of fighting, which could attract attention and entertain audiences. The scandals offer a number of descriptions of the process. In the end, scandals can fulfill the need of human beings and entertain them at the same time. It is no doubt that scandals can get a lot of public attention on social media which no speaker or reformer ever could.

Still some opponents of this claim insist that scandals sometimes propagate wrong information to the public. It is true that sometimes scandals disseminate wrong information, but the claim itself only says that scandals can focus public attention on problems that no speaker or reformer ever could. There is no demand for the correctness of information within the scandals. Hence, the opponents can support the claims too.

In short, scandals can attract public attention in ways that no speaker and reformer ever could, because they can offer information to the public in a fast, convenient and interesting way. However, sometimes scandals can propagate invalid information to the public and mislead the citizens.

At first sight of this argument, it seems the interview- centered method is a better way to take further researches in Tertia. The interview-centered method seems better than the observation-centered method, because interview-centered method provides a different and better consequence. However, there are a lot of questions needing answers unless the conclusion which Dr.Karp has is contingent on some unreliable evidence.

First, Dr.karp used the interview-centered method in research and found that children were more likely to talk about their parents. However, Dr.karp did not tell us what questions he asked in the interview and how the children responded to his questions. If Dr.karp asked a series of questions about parents, children can not answer without talking about parents. Hence, a series of questions about parents are not appropriate to this interview-centered research. Even though children spent more time talking about their parents, it did not mean that the children were closer to their parents. For example, children have been reared by their grandparents for years, and only know pieces about their parents through grandparents’ stories. In the end, children do not know who their parents really are. As a result of this, the conclusion which interview-centered method is better is defective. Dr.Karp should provide more reliable evidence to sustain his conclusion.

Second, Allowing the children to know who their parents really are, can it mean that the children are close to their parents? If their parents all work in other places far from Tertia, children can only reunite with parents once a year. As a result of this, children who miss their parents may spend more time talking about their parents. Besides, what children said may not represent the truth. A self-reporting sometimes may have the untrustworthy result because the participants would say something to satisfy the interviewer. Dr.Karp should address this question to better evaluate the interview-centered method.

Third, how similar is the group of islands to Tertia? Culturally or geologically? Perhaps the group of islands, which excludes Teria, is far from Teria. All we know that cultures can differ with the distance. Therefore, the group of islands has no analogy to Teria so that the interview-centered method can not reflect the real relationship between children and their parents. Dr.Karp should prove the similarity between the group of islands and Teria.

In shorts, Dr.Karp’s conclusion and his interview-centered method rely on a series of logical flaws. To make his conclusion more convincing, Dr.Karp should answer the questions stated above and provide more valid evidence.

Ideally, students can choose any fields which they like and start their learning. However, educational institutions have a responsibility to ensure the success of students. Besides, some students have to find a job to pay the bills. For those reasons, I agree with the claim stated above.

First, educational institutions have accountability to ensure every student to succeed in their field of learning. Allowing students to get into every field may hurt this goal. If students get into any fields they want, the pace of the teaching has to decrease to accommodate the weak students, and the learning materials must be less than before. In the end, some advanced students can not have advanced materials to learn further knowledge. There will be only average students, and those advanced students and the education quality suffer as a whole. Hence, educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields which is unsuitable for them.

Second, most students have to find jobs to pay the basic cost of their lives. It is reasonable for educational institutions to encourage students to study in likely successful field so that they could get a job to cover the basic living cost. If those students choose their interesting field and start their learning, perhaps, they would find themselves are not competent enough for the field and fail to study. In the end, they would be hard to find a promising job so that they may have insufficient salary to cover living cost. Besides, they lose the passion for the field which they started before. Hence, it is important for educational institutions to encourage students to choose a likely successful field.

Some people may disagree with the claim, because they think that it is unfair for students to give up their own interesting field for a good job. However, this is very narrow-minded. As I said above, students have to find jobs to pay the basic living bills. If they can not pay the basic living bills, they would lose their interests in the field. Those students who find a good job to cover their living cost may have better opportunities to pursue their interests. Besides, it is unfair for those advanced students to lose their chances to learn further knowledge.

In short, educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed in order to assure the education quality and a good job prospect of students as a whole. With enough salary, the graduates can have better opportunities to pursue their interesting field.

At first sight of the recommendation, it seems reasonable that Balmer can reduce the number of moped accidents by limiting the number of rental mopeds with the example of Seaville. However, the recommendation relies on a series of logical flaws. In order to establish the recommendation better, some questions need to be addressed.

First, are the moped accidents serious problems in Balmer? Perhaps, it was only four moped accidents which happened in Balmer last year, and people who involved in accidents just got slightly hurt. Taking one step further, moped accidents are serious problems in Balmer. It sounds quite astonishing that the population will increase to 100000 during the summer months, but it does not tell us the raw number of visitors. If only 100 visitors travel to the Balmer, there would be few rental moped accidents. Without answering the question above, there is unsound to reduce the number of rental mopeds.

Second, should all the rental mopeds be blamed for moped accidents? Are there no locals riding mopeds? Maybe in most of accidents the local mopeds are the main factors, and the rental mopeds could be victims. In order to make the recommendation more convincing, the number of local mopeds should be provided.

Third, can the editor ensure that halving the number of mopeds would halve the number of accidents? Is there strong connection between the number of rental mopeds and the number of accidents. If after launching the law, there would be more accidents, because the locals think the roads are safer enough to driving around. We need to more reliable information to ensure road will be safer after launching the law.

Finally, is Balmer and Seaville similar? Perhaps, Balmer is a popular visit place which attracts thousands of visitors during the summer months, and Seaville is only a small seaside village with bad transport. As a result of this, it is imprudent to expect that the limit on the number of rental mopeds can have the same effect on Balmer. Allowing the Balmer and Seaville have analogous natural and traffic condition, is the limit the only factor attributed to the decrease of the accidents? Maybe Seaville’s government also launched speed limit on mopeds and gave traffic education to moped drivers and pedestrians. Without knowing the specific condition between Balmer and Seaville, we can not have a more adroit conclusion.

In short, the question discussed above should be addressed in order to establish recommendation better. Unless more reliable information about Balmer and Seaville is offered, we can not have a more prudent conclusion.