GRE Prep Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in
[#permalink]
03 May 2015, 03:49
03 May 2015, 03:49
1
Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.
The speaker contends that the arts should be funded as much as the military. I concede that the arts have a potential to reform any country economy. Beyond this concession I find the speaker's assertion indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually make totally generalization about the comparison.
First, the main reason for my fundamental disagreement with the speaker's assertion is that the military of any nation is one of the most prevail need in current scenario, because each nation want to conquer other, and the reason behind conquering might be justifiable or unjustifiable. For instance, now's days all country are fighting against terrorism, for this fight we need a highly trained military forces who can combat with these terrorists, this is only done by supporting more and more to the country military instead of the arts.
Second, the chief reason for my disagreement is lies in a empirical evidence that when any country legislators assemble in their assembly, they mainly focus on the civilian security instead of any other things. For instance, one of the most powerful of the world the USA has been spending millions of dollars on their country civilian safety, not only the USA, but also other powerful countries are also spending millions of dollars for this work.
Finally, some people argue that the arts is weapon that can generate numbers of employment in any country where it will be supported by the government, but in reality the artists works are not dependable on the government money. Moreover, the arts can grow independently, because the roots of the arts lie deep in culture instead of any kinds of supports.
In sum, I concur that the government should mainly focus on one of the most paramount need that is the military of their nation, because for stability or pace can grow more creative arts and artists. Furthermore, the arts can sustain individually without any kind of assistance, so therefore the government primarily should focus on the military needs.
The speaker contends that the arts should be funded as much as the military. I concede that the arts have a potential to reform any country economy. Beyond this concession I find the speaker's assertion indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually make totally generalization about the comparison.
First, the main reason for my fundamental disagreement with the speaker's assertion is that the military of any nation is one of the most prevail need in current scenario, because each nation want to conquer other, and the reason behind conquering might be justifiable or unjustifiable. For instance, now's days all country are fighting against terrorism, for this fight we need a highly trained military forces who can combat with these terrorists, this is only done by supporting more and more to the country military instead of the arts.
Second, the chief reason for my disagreement is lies in a empirical evidence that when any country legislators assemble in their assembly, they mainly focus on the civilian security instead of any other things. For instance, one of the most powerful of the world the USA has been spending millions of dollars on their country civilian safety, not only the USA, but also other powerful countries are also spending millions of dollars for this work.
Finally, some people argue that the arts is weapon that can generate numbers of employment in any country where it will be supported by the government, but in reality the artists works are not dependable on the government money. Moreover, the arts can grow independently, because the roots of the arts lie deep in culture instead of any kinds of supports.
In sum, I concur that the government should mainly focus on one of the most paramount need that is the military of their nation, because for stability or pace can grow more creative arts and artists. Furthermore, the arts can sustain individually without any kind of assistance, so therefore the government primarily should focus on the military needs.
Re: First issue essay, pls evaluate ...........
[#permalink]
03 May 2015, 05:09
03 May 2015, 05:09
1
Expert Reply
Another response:
Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.
The issue here has raised a number of questions in countries around the world. It is prevalent in today's world and has raised serious doubts. Arts or military might? Which of the two defines a nation. A lot of thought has to be put into this issue, as both play a vital role in the way the society progresses.
Arts are the defining characteristics of a nation. They are symbolic of each country, they provide vital information about the existing traditions in a society. Art forms such as dance, literature, music , paintings are all an indispensable part of the society. Albeit, military power does play a vital role in securing a nation against foreign and internal threats, simply providing majority of the nations funding for military purposes is unjustified.
Art forms also share equal importance. All great nations have been recognized by their artistic works. Beethoven's symphony, Leonardo Da Vinci's puzzling paintings, the delicate Indian dance traditions have left one and all awe struck. Arts mainly thrive on the appreciation that is given by the public. An artist does not need millions of dollars of funding for him to put up a beautiful work of art. Money is not a motivational factor for arts, it is respect and appreciation that motivates an artist to carry out his work with sheer determination.
Military advancements require billions of dollars of investment each year from the government, however it would be wrong to say that art forms require an equivalent amount of funding. But completely ignoring arts all together might lead to a sharp decline in artistic endeavors. Some amount of promotional funding, and security in part of the government has to be provided. Museums, exhibitions and other promotional events have to be initiated by the government to ensure that the artists are motivated to do what they do best.
This does not mean the government invest million dollars in arts, but some part of the government funding should be allotted for arts in case a day arises when one needs to revive an art form which has lost all its value and which was once the essence of a particular tradition. Military advancements are of great importance in today's world and nation's need to invest a lot of money to ensure the safety of its citizens.
Thus although no large scale funding is required for art forms, but the government should keep aside some part of the tax payer's money for arts, so that people can continue to enjoy the true essence of their homeland and culture, which inturn would motivate various artists to continue their work.
Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.
The issue here has raised a number of questions in countries around the world. It is prevalent in today's world and has raised serious doubts. Arts or military might? Which of the two defines a nation. A lot of thought has to be put into this issue, as both play a vital role in the way the society progresses.
Arts are the defining characteristics of a nation. They are symbolic of each country, they provide vital information about the existing traditions in a society. Art forms such as dance, literature, music , paintings are all an indispensable part of the society. Albeit, military power does play a vital role in securing a nation against foreign and internal threats, simply providing majority of the nations funding for military purposes is unjustified.
Art forms also share equal importance. All great nations have been recognized by their artistic works. Beethoven's symphony, Leonardo Da Vinci's puzzling paintings, the delicate Indian dance traditions have left one and all awe struck. Arts mainly thrive on the appreciation that is given by the public. An artist does not need millions of dollars of funding for him to put up a beautiful work of art. Money is not a motivational factor for arts, it is respect and appreciation that motivates an artist to carry out his work with sheer determination.
Military advancements require billions of dollars of investment each year from the government, however it would be wrong to say that art forms require an equivalent amount of funding. But completely ignoring arts all together might lead to a sharp decline in artistic endeavors. Some amount of promotional funding, and security in part of the government has to be provided. Museums, exhibitions and other promotional events have to be initiated by the government to ensure that the artists are motivated to do what they do best.
This does not mean the government invest million dollars in arts, but some part of the government funding should be allotted for arts in case a day arises when one needs to revive an art form which has lost all its value and which was once the essence of a particular tradition. Military advancements are of great importance in today's world and nation's need to invest a lot of money to ensure the safety of its citizens.
Thus although no large scale funding is required for art forms, but the government should keep aside some part of the tax payer's money for arts, so that people can continue to enjoy the true essence of their homeland and culture, which inturn would motivate various artists to continue their work.
Re: First issue essay, pls evaluate ...........
[#permalink]
03 Jun 2015, 00:54
03 Jun 2015, 00:54
hi,
your essay is good, clear and precise. if you increase the length of the essay, you might get more score. try to elaborate the examples a little more as i read in the sample essays which scored 5 and 6. one more thing which is important is the flow between the paragraphs, use furthermore, also, as said above etc. and also you have written finally in the second last para and in the last para "in sum". the e-rater may cut your score for this. if you are writting your conclusion, in that para only write such words like in sum. u can also refer the magoosh for this
your essay is good, clear and precise. if you increase the length of the essay, you might get more score. try to elaborate the examples a little more as i read in the sample essays which scored 5 and 6. one more thing which is important is the flow between the paragraphs, use furthermore, also, as said above etc. and also you have written finally in the second last para and in the last para "in sum". the e-rater may cut your score for this. if you are writting your conclusion, in that para only write such words like in sum. u can also refer the magoosh for this
