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.
The prompt suggests a suspension of government funding for arts since it is insignificant compared to the number of citizens in need of financial support. In my opinion, I mostly disagree with this statement and argue that, while the nation should devote more resources towards helping citizens in need, it would be prejudice to solely target funding for art.
Some may argue that funding art museums and services provide no value to socioeconomic issues in the world. For instance, museums that charge people for exploring the building and admiring paintings only contribute further to capitalism and personal money loss. In other words, while the government provides funding for temporary visual pleasure of consumers, there are many other’s struggling to find enough money for their next meal. This example reveals the gaps in a nation that caters to the desires of middle-class citizens while neglecting the needs those deemed as inferior. That being said, it is important that the nation allocates some funding to assist the citizens who have fallen through the cracks.
However, art can be a form of therapy and emotional release for many. Some may resort to the creation of art as their method of coping with personal trauma and world issues. Alternatively, some may resort to art as a coping method, finding comfort in the beauty of an artists creations. This example demonstrates that art may provide significant benefits to the artists and admirers. Everyone has different aspirations and methods of coping. While some may perceive funding for the arts as wasteful, others may greatly appreciate the government for providing an outlet for creators. That being said, while it is important for the government to support those in need, it would be unfair to solely target funding for arts while neglecting the government’s funding for other services.
Moreover, the meaning and information that can be extracted from art can often shed light on important issues within a community or the world. Many artists take advantage of their platform to spread awareness of current issues that are often neglected by the public. For instance, some artists create paintings of impoverished children suffering from poverty, hunger, and lack of education. Artists like these have the power to encourage viewers to help those in need. Moreover, there are some artists who donate all of their revenue to local communities or countries deprived of basic needs, such as food and clean water. These examples illustrate the value that arts provide for the artists, viewers, and those in need. The consequences of suspending government funding for arts may be detrimental to all parties mentioned.
In conclusion, while funding for arts does not directly solve issues of unemployment and starvation, it does appear to provide some value to the community, whether it be for therapeutic purposes, leisurely enjoyment, and indirectly assisting those in need. That being said, my opinion remains that it would be prejudice to solely target funding for art.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dice to solely target funding for art. Some may argue that funding art museums ...
^^^
Line 3, column 10, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ly target funding for art. Some may argue that funding art museums and services p...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, may, moreover, so, while, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in my opinion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2570.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 488.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26639344262 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73797485662 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.477459016393 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6752736589 60.3974514979 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.739130435 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2173913043 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82608695652 5.21951772744 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.313481802466 0.243740707755 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102421849309 0.0831039109588 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656289945883 0.0758088955206 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208057297363 0.150359130593 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0470359352049 0.0667264976115 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.