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.
Throughout human history, the arts played a fundamental role as the indicators of overall cultural and technological development. Each revolution in culture and science, subsequently depicted in arts. The prompt suggests that whether the government should fund arts to sustain it and make it accessible to the vast majority. In my not so humble opinion, I partially disagree with the statement that authorities should subsidize arts for the following reasons.
To begin with, funding the arts to make it available for the people will be reflected in the decreased quality of these arts, as the quality has to be sacrificed for the quantity. Quintessential art examples are born within a long time frame. For example, prominent Leonardo Da Vinci's masterpiece Mona Lisa has been made for almost twenty years and another five years to scrutinize it until it reaches perfection. So in order to get high-quality arts, it will be imperative to nurture the arts for sufficient time, so that majority can get access to the inspiring art product. The question is whether the government could or should sustain the arts industry for such a long time?
While others may see the development of the arts as somewhat paramount, however subsidizing arts demands cash injection in the long run. Point is that, would it be better to fund other sectors that are more essential rather than wasting money on arts. For instance, the health security sphere has more importance, and it directly contributes to the overall life quality of citizens. Consequently, sufficient subsidies in this sector will yield plausible results as increasing life expectancy, increasing population and so on. As can be seen from the example, governments should prioritize thus sectors of the society which in its effects will be more conducive to the well-being of the citizens, rather than profligating the taxpayers' money.
On the contrary, it would be imprudent to gainsay the fact that arts do contribute to the quality of life, by educating people and ameliorating the level of cultural sensitivity and cultural awareness. Especially, amplifying the position of the national arts may augment patriotism among the citizens, thus increasing loyalism and trust to their government. As an example, if the authorities fund national musicians, to motivate them in creating prominent music pieces, that could become renowned on the international level and popularity on that dimension enhance the goodwill of the country. Amplification of the goodwill contributes to increased tourism level and amends an economic perspective of the nation.
To conclude up, governments should prioritize thus sectors of the society that are paramount to citizens, rather than uncautiously wasting the money. However, in the case of arts pros and cons of such funding must be deliberately considered before making the decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 645, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arts'' or 'art's'?
Suggestion: arts'; art's
... government could or should sustain the arts industry for such a long time? While...
^^^^
Line 5, column 727, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'taxpayers'' or 'taxpayer's'?
Suggestion: taxpayers'; taxpayer's
... citizens, rather than profligating the taxpayers money. On the contrary, it would be ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, thus, well, while, as to, for example, for instance, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2430.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 454.0 442.535393258 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35242290749 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99883538108 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52422907489 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 756.0 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4989411633 60.3974514979 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.5 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.2 5.21951772744 119% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31639251077 0.243740707755 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0971010721996 0.0831039109588 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0751433223533 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180295864659 0.150359130593 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041874443442 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.1392134831 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 100.480337079 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.