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.
Arts and cultures reflect the sophistication of human race. It is arts and cultures what sets us apart from any other races. Whether the arts need funding from government in order to flourish is a contentious issue. I strongly believe that government funding is mandatory for arts. In the context of technologically dominant world, arts and culture would have tough time to flourish without government’s support.
In the first place, the value of arts is all about appreciating it, if arts cannot get platform to be exposed, its values diminish. Arts can tell a lot of thing about a country, so it is incumbent upon government to save the arts. As an example, The mount rushmore National memorial in the United States is a living example that government support for the arts is crucial. The mount rushmore, which depicts four presidents of the United States: Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson and Gorge Washington, has become an iconic place in the United States. It attracts millions of tourists every year. It has been a symbol of national unity for Americans. Even though the monument was built in the time of economic depression, government managed funding to build it. Now, people around the world have opportunity to appreciate such a magnificent masterpiece.
In the second place, with the growing dominance of modern technology, our arts and cultures are on the verge of extinction. Application of modern technology to replicate arts has become a matter of concern. By way of example, Thanka Chitra—a traditional arts of Nepal—has suffered a lot from the modern technology to replicate arts. Thanka Chitras are paintings painted on cloths, a community in Nepal embraces Thanka Chitra as their occupation, but when the Chinese machine-made replica of Thanka Chitra made their way in Nepali market, most of the hand-crafted original Thanka Chitra remained unsold, which in turn putting the original creators out of their occupation. Thus, the government should fund the arts so that it can preserve arts from being extinct.
Admittedly, some may argue that government funding of the arts can mar the integrity of the arts. Because, artist will not strive to produce masterpieces if he/she is secure for their income even if their arts did not go in the market. Moreover, government’s involvement in arts risks politicization of arts such as governments authorities tend to be biased towards the particular community, which may ignite chaos among the artists and eventually threaten the arts; However, it is all upon the government. The government should identify the areas of arts that are in desperate need of the government support and should help them to uplift them.
Finally, although government funding may risk the integrity of the arts, the government itself has power to control such risk. Thus, the government funding of arts is essential in order for the arts to flourish and be available for all.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 126, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hat sets us apart from any other races. Whether the arts need funding from government i...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 147, Rule ID: A_LOT_OF_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun thing seems to be countable; consider using: 'a lot of things'.
Suggestion: a lot of things
...sed, its values diminish. Arts can tell a lot of thing about a country, so it is incumbent upo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'art'?
Suggestion: art
...of example, Thanka Chitra—a traditional arts of Nepal—has suffered a lot from the mo...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, thus, apart from, such as, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2484.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18580375783 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92011810599 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 215.323595506 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517745302714 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 764.1 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 65.9061701504 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.5 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9583333333 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29166666667 5.21951772744 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.509979187068 0.243740707755 209% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.156491257371 0.0831039109588 188% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123816036288 0.0758088955206 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.315236054743 0.150359130593 210% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.097388324322 0.0667264976115 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.