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.
Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.
The essential function of arts, whether being a story telling piece of the artists themselves or a demonstration of cultural charisma representing a national image, is inevitable in life. However, arts could only be flourished and appreciated in a society where politic is stable, economic is surging, and life of commoners are secured. Despite the critical role of arts in nurturing our soul, government funding, being the most important resource to construct infrastructure and thriving economy, should be dispersed in area where the money is most well-spent underpinning social welfare. The statement has belittled the role of government funding towards a negative tangent by addressing it as a ‘threat’ that tarnishes integrity in the art world, the idea which again I strongly object to.
Assessing preceding evident on the growth of arts, we could easy draw a conclusion that the acceleration of arts doesn’t rely heavily on government funding but rather the economic environment which spark of inspiration is accultured from. In Europe, for instance, the booming of arts was all ignited during the 17th and 18th century where its social stability and economic growth were most erudite. The advent of ingenious artists such as Da Vincci, Picasso, Victor Hugo, etc. has brought either the vivid life of people then into life or groused about their sorrow and criticism towards the authority via their arts works. In another word, artists seek for aspiration to be creative, which could not be induced by financial measure. On the other hand, there are many more imperative aspects required funding from government to support, for instance, public healthcare, infrastructure systems, and educational sponsor. If majority resources are injected into building arts gallery and conserving cultural assets, life of citizen would be meager, especially among developing nations where foods prevails over any form of arts.
Considering the situation where government funding could be lavished on arts, then for sure, it could prompt up creativity and flamboyance in the art world. The assertion on the risk that funding diminishes moral righteous is by far implausible due to the fact that artists, akin to other commoners, are in need for financial support. This could be particularly relevant to artists from societies that esthetic works are of low-demand. In Vietnam, for instance, where arts used to be a great part of life was plummeting with the arrival of wars and political instability. Now, artists are experiencing quite a suffer. Thus, government has worked with local investors (as XQ Art Gallery) to provide adequate working environment, encourage retention of artisan by securing their life to at least bare minimal.
In conclusion, the two viewpoints suggested do not hold true in all context. The priority of arts should not gain such high status in the provision of government funding if there exist other more imperious circumstances. When such resource does make available to the arts world, I believe it could only alleviate the miserable situation of poor artists instead of disgracing their virtue of work.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 697, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... a negative tangent by addressing it as a 'threat' that tarnishes integ...
^
Line 3, column 974, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arts'' or 'art's'?
Suggestion: arts'; art's
...ty resources are injected into building arts gallery and conserving cultural assets,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 609, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ty. Now, artists are experiencing quite a suffer. Thus, government has worked with local...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, then, thus, well, at least, for instance, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 33.0505617978 57% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2656.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 495.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36565656566 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94551828228 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.569696969697 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 824.4 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3940773869 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.8 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33100772834 0.243740707755 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920846874683 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591578636434 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212442168018 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0148868792372 0.0667264976115 22% => 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: 16.2 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.77 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.