It is believed by some people that arts should be funded by the government as to grantee general access to the public, while others who hold the opposite opinion think that it would hinder the integrity of arts if government get involved in the process. Despite the first opinion make sense in some cases, I tend to agree with the second view. Because the special tribute of arts and the political role of government plays in our society are not mutually exclusive.
Concededly, under the support of government funding, some type of arts could flourish, especially in some cases art could reach to a wider general public via the promoting of government. An excellent example would be public building designed by some unknown artist, namely the Sydney Opera House, which resembles the image of the seaside city, is a fabulous masterpiece of the combination of government funding and arts. In fact, there are numerous examples of government funding art projects worldwide, obviously the funding support helped to facilitate the influence of art on the general public.
However, what should be noticed is that not all types of art could serve the political goal of government. When government start meddling in the process to choose which type, or which political predilection art attached to, it is no doubt destructive in the neutrality of existence of all arts. In other words, if we give the power to the government to favor certain type of arts, it would facilitate the exact type which suits its political ideology, as a result, arts that probably against the propaganda would be exclusive. At the end, the art which the general public have access to would become the platform for promoting government propaganda, isn’t it scary?
A real life example to describe how art and politics are not mutually exclusive would be the separate of state and church. Years ago, rulers like Roman Emperor, English Royalty, usually use the religious belief, which recognize the existence of god, to consolidate their governing power, thus a fundamental law was written in western society, to separate religion and the government. With regarding to the claim stated, when government returns to support a certain type of religion, which is considered as a type of art, the history of obscuring state and church sounds familiar again. Therefore, to protect the integrity of art, in my view, government funding should be excluded.
To recapitulate, I admit that government funding would benefit to the development of art, however, it is only restricted to certain type which is accord with their political propaganda, thus jeopardize the integrity of art.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 140, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...n some cases art could reach to a wider general public via the promoting of government. An exc...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 584, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... facilitate the influence of art on the general public. However, what should be noticed is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 558, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...xclusive. At the end, the art which the general public have access to would become the platfor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ment propaganda, isn't it scary? A real life example to describe how art ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 225, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., thus jeopardize the integrity of art.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, regarding, second, so, therefore, thus, while, as to, in fact, no doubt, as a result, in my view, in other words, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2225.0 2235.4752809 100% => OK
No of words: 434.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1267281106 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75239553062 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502304147465 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 706.5 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.38483146067 251% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 56.8770213316 60.3974514979 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.333333333 118.986275619 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9333333333 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.1333333333 5.21951772744 194% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.437660945472 0.243740707755 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.170456748269 0.0831039109588 205% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0924310095033 0.0758088955206 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.274153773954 0.150359130593 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0467201526141 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.1639044944 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.