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.
The statement depicts the dilemma of the author toward the necessity of government funding with the development in the arts field. The author agrees with the idea to fund the arts but is afraid that the fund could possibly damage the integrity of the arts. Arts as a form of human spirit plays an important role in society. Artists usually express their feeling or subconscious in art pieces and invoke resonances of audiences helping them to understand their own feeling or palliate their emotions suffering. The creation of arts come from the very honest feeling of the artists. Therefore, through government funding, the living condition of the artists altered, and thus the art pieces no longer reflect the real feeling of the artists at the moment.
However, from the previous sentence, by that, I don’t mean we shouldn’t fund the art industry, but I do mean not to fund the artists, which I will address on next passage. It is necessary for a government to fund in art facilities. In this way, not only cultures of a country can be preserved but also art pieces are more available to the mass population, and thus thrive the art industry as a whole. For example, the museum of Louvre, Paris, owns myriads of the art collections and attracts people from all over the world. With such prosperity, the museum is able to sustain its own as well as pushes their art industry further beyond.
Nevertheless, funding the artists is not as efficacious as funding the art facilities. By giving the artists supports, it is possible to change the living condition of them. But this can be seen as only a short-term strategy: it is insalubrious for the economy and the artists would possibly too rely on the fund. Moreover, the fund may also influence the mindset of the artists and usually touching art pieces requires themselves to face certain kind of quagmire and depict the struggle deep in their mind. Take Chinese poet as an example, one of the considered best calligraphy was created by Su Shi, Song dynasty, during which, he got framed by his political opponents, and the king decided to ostracize him, which resulted in his huge lugubriousness, thus engendering his masterpiece in tear.
In conclusion, it is necessary to fund the arts industry, especially arts facilities, but not the artists. Because funding the artists is generally not as effective as funding a museum which is more functional and accessible for the public. Furthermore, the supports from the government might threaten the integrity of the artists and that is noisome for them from long term perspective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 209, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...nd the arts but is afraid that the fund could possibly damage the integrity of the arts. Arts ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 293, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to rely'?
Suggestion: to rely
... economy and the artists would possibly too rely on the fund. Moreover, the fund may als...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 44, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arts'' or 'art's'?
Suggestion: arts'; art's
...conclusion, it is necessary to fund the arts industry, especially arts facilities, b...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, kind of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.3162921348 62% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 58.6224719101 96% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2161.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 437.0 442.535393258 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94508009153 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79793742475 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49885583524 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 654.3 704.065955056 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9082014431 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.736842105 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15789473684 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.377877636981 0.243740707755 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.141197571266 0.0831039109588 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100604085584 0.0758088955206 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.250613183997 0.150359130593 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0670646960982 0.0667264976115 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.