Claim: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.
Reason: It is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-to use public resources to fund the arts when people's basic needs are not being met.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
In times of recessions and stressed economies, people often lose their jobs or much of their income, and without sufficient savings to last out an economic winter, some will lose basic food or shelter. It can be argued that during these times, the funding for art and other areas that are seemingly unrelated to daily lives should be reduced or even suspended, but I believe it to be unwise to do so.
First of all, government funding to art, or government funding of any sort in general, are supposed to be a support to the sector that is unlikely to fail. Art is never a very stable living, and without this stipend, artists cannot possibly be expected to join in the creation of arts full-time. In this scenario, even a very brief stop in funding would regress the entire profession in the said country by a long way. In fact, currently the intermittent funding to many projects, usually caused by political changes, is one of the greatest squandering in modern economies, since these projects almost always fail and all preliminary investments are wasted. If art as a profession is subject to the same senseless allocation of funding, art would probably not be able to survive in the country after all. Even the complete withdrawal of all funds to arts would be more reasonable than such a suspension.
Secondly, even if funds are withdrawed from art, it is often hard to find further use for this funding. In economic crisis, governments usually need desperately places for worthy investments, to pump the economy back into working position. The funding needed for these stimuli are often great, but it is a small price to pay. Withdrawal of funds would be a most foolish act, since no good is to be done from having even more people lose their jobs and become unemployed. There are always a select few who cannot understand the importance of art in our lives, or imagine the work as an artist to be a relaxed one, so they become envious of the imaginary easy life of such artists in down times, but most knew of the power of art in motivation. The funding of art is often minuscule compared to economic woes, after all, and overall it does have a positive effect on the livelihoods of the society as a whole.
Last but not least, the moral concerns about supporting art when people are going hungry is impossible for us to solve. Poverty and hunger are far away the lives of many of us, especially in developed countries, but it exists everywhere in significant numbers, and the reasons are complicated to solve. Illnesses, disabilities, over-borrowing and such maladies would destroy one's livelihoods in all but the most determined welfare programs. It can be safely claimed that there will always be significant portions of people that are unemployed, so the claim mentioned would mean the funding to arts would never be put into place.
Summing the above, it is unwise to stop government funding to art in economic downturns, or any government funding that was deemed appropriate for the development of the country. Such a move would benefit no one, and perhaps destroy years of progress on important projects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 376, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...rrowing and such maladies would destroy ones livelihoods in all but the most determi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, second, secondly, so, after all, in fact, in general, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 33.0505617978 85% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2591.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 539.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80705009276 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70029441667 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.500927643785 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 830.7 704.065955056 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 12.0 1.77640449438 676% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3356102739 60.3974514979 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.55 118.986275619 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.95 23.4991977007 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316820415601 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101963324755 0.0831039109588 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582001498289 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181888884195 0.150359130593 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0245089872431 0.0667264976115 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.1639044944 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 100.480337079 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.8971910112 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.