Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Government should not provide financial support to artists (For example, painters, writer, musicians …), and the government should let them support themselves.
A vast majority of people advocate that the artists should be subsidized by the government because they celebrate the individual artists as both creator of beauty and catalyst for the community development. However, in my opinion, fiscal support for the artists may be counterproductive in many aspects and government had better not provide this support.
Firstly, government funding of artists is inequitable for the taxpayers. To specify, now that artistic creations are not basic necessity of life, it is unfair that every taxpayer, the major benefactor of such funding, need to contribute towards such creations that they seldom engage with. Admittedly, every individual enjoys some forms of art, be it through movies, music or books. However, such forms of art are highly lucrative. With considerable revenue gained from the tickets fees and relevant industries, filmmakers, actors, singers and composers are more than capable to support themselves, and the government funding for them is thus undoubtedly redundant. In this case, if those artists are still subsidized by the government, complaints from the masses may be the necessary result. As for the artists whose creations are highbrow or caviar to the general, the rich or the art aficionado should fund them out of their own pocket instead of seeking funding from the government.
Furthermore, while the artists are expected to be motivated by the financial support, they are more likely to become excessively reliant on it, which is certainly undesirable. In other words, when they are aware that no matter whether their works can sell well, their livelihood is still ensured by the government’s subsidy, hardly can they be forceful enough honing their creations. In this case, how can we expect any more masterpieces? On the contrary, without the government funding, artists may be more meticulous in creating, most likely because they would otherwise find it hard to earn their bread from those creations. Hence, for the advent of elaborate pieces of art, the artists should not be funded by the government.
To sum up, considering the potential complaints from the taxpayers and negative effects brought by the over reliance, artists are better to support themselves than to be subsidized by the government.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-30 | Storyline | 88 | view |
| 2022-11-30 | Storyline | view | |
| 2021-11-12 | JoeyRussell07 | 90 | view |
| 2021-09-22 | LAPLACE DEMON | 82 | view |
| 2021-09-22 | LAPLACE DEMON | 83 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Economy growth should not be slowed down by concerns about environment 68
- Imagine that you have been given the opportunity to advise the government of a city or region area that you are familiar with to spend more money on ONE thing to benefit the city or region Which ONE of these do you believe would be the most beneficial for 48
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Nowadays people are more obsessed with buying material things like expensive clothes and cars because people judge each other according to their possessions Agree or disagree 76
- Imagine that you have been given the opportunity to advise the government of a city or region area that you are familiar with to spend more money on ONE thing to benefit the city or region Which ONE of these do you believe would be the most beneficial for 94
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Economy growth should not be slowed down by concerns about environment 68
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, so, still, thus, well, while, as for, in my opinion, in other words, on the contrary, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 15.1003584229 152% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 9.8082437276 112% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 13.8261648746 65% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.0286738351 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 43.0788530466 72% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 52.1666666667 92% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.0752688172 136% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1919.0 1977.66487455 97% => OK
No of words: 361.0 407.700716846 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31578947368 4.8611393121 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.48103885553 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89697987293 2.67179642975 108% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 212.727598566 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.540166204986 0.524837075471 103% => OK
syllable_count: 586.8 618.680645161 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 9.59856630824 31% => OK
Article: 4.0 3.08781362007 130% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.51792114695 142% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.86738351254 54% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.94265232975 202% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.6003584229 73% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 20.1344086022 119% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2261382091 48.9658058833 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.933333333 100.406767564 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0666666667 20.6045352989 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.2666666667 5.45110844103 188% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.5376344086 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 11.8709677419 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.85842293907 52% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88709677419 61% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.235021681252 0.236089414692 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0851308177443 0.076458572812 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0686149644667 0.0737576698707 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158052933918 0.150856017488 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0665246262795 0.0645574589148 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 11.7677419355 133% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 58.1214874552 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 10.1575268817 125% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 10.9000537634 127% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.01818996416 112% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 86.8835125448 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 10.002688172 150% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.0537634409 115% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 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: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 76.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 23.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.