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.
Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significan
[#permalink]
04 Jul 2021, 20:54
04 Jul 2021, 20:54
1
Topic: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Art is a way of showcasing and describing country’s culture and local traditions. It is useless to compare the impact of an artist and an engineer or a doctor. No one can say that Leonardo Da Vinci is nothing in front of Nicola Tesla. Art includes not only paintings but also theatres, film and music industry, dance etc. One might argue that spending billions of dollars by the film and entertainment industry is a contributing factor to the unemployment of and hunger, but these industries generate huge employment for people with skills such as Sound Engineers, Interior Designers, Architects and of course Lawyers and Doctors. Eradicating hunger and unemployment comprehend a list of factors, which includes allocation of funds for different industries, education of citizens, inflation and overall economic condition of the country and the World as a whole, pandemics and epidemics, natural resources of the country etc. According to a report by the World Bank, in any country, national defense gets the highest amount of government funding every year during the National Budget announcements, while the lowest benefactors are Arts and Tourism. The governments, throughout the world, are trying to develop the art as an industry. Now the question arises, should this little funding be considered as a spendthrift idea?
Let us consider, for instance, a tribal village, known as Ramchandrapur, in the state of Odisha, India, where people communicate with each other by drawing on the walls of their houses or huts. The young people receive education from government schools, after which they get employed by the government organizations as Art specialists or Sketch Artists. Suppose, the village stops receiving support from the government. It is hard to imagine their lives without art. The Reserve Bank of India, aka RBI, states that India suffers a staggering unemployment rate of 23%, which certainly cannot be compensated by reducing fund allocation to the arts sector.
On the contrary, one can put forward the percentage of employment generation by the Art industry for common people. For instance, in majority of the countries in the African Continent, people suffer from hunger and unemployment and do not depend of Art for feeding their offspring. If their respective governments spend money on Art, then public outrage against the decision is a sure event. Certainly, hunger and unemployment in African countries are issues that the world is aware of and giant NGOs such as Bill and Melinda Gates Org, are fighting hard to counteract the issues.
Again, in countries such as USA, Japan and Great Britain, the most outstanding overall trend has been that government activity and government support for the arts have expanded tremendously since 1945, post 2nd World War. In the countries without a major prior public commitment to the arts, strong programs had taken root by the 1980s so that government support in those countries now has a significant impact on the arts. In many countries of continental Europe, government ministries with responsibility for the arts already were firmly established by the 1930s. These governments do not compromise funds allocated for arts with other sectoral allocations. According to a New York Times article, Japan’s Anime, have larger fan following Basketball and Olympics combined. In Japan, children are taught to draw, for free, and is a hence Anime industry is a huge employer in the country.
The overriding conclusion that emerges from the above-mentioned points is that government support for the arts is here to stay everywhere in the industrialized world. There has, of course, been a long tradition of state support for the arts on the continent of Europe. What has been the striking development of the postwar years is that state support now appears to be a firmly entrenched component of the political traditions of Great Britain, Ireland, North America and Japan as well. Government involvement has grown impressively at all levels. There has been a growing recognition that the artistic community is a legitimate and worthwhile element of society, as deserving of governmental assistance as are the many other groups that are aided by the state.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Art is a way of showcasing and describing country’s culture and local traditions. It is useless to compare the impact of an artist and an engineer or a doctor. No one can say that Leonardo Da Vinci is nothing in front of Nicola Tesla. Art includes not only paintings but also theatres, film and music industry, dance etc. One might argue that spending billions of dollars by the film and entertainment industry is a contributing factor to the unemployment of and hunger, but these industries generate huge employment for people with skills such as Sound Engineers, Interior Designers, Architects and of course Lawyers and Doctors. Eradicating hunger and unemployment comprehend a list of factors, which includes allocation of funds for different industries, education of citizens, inflation and overall economic condition of the country and the World as a whole, pandemics and epidemics, natural resources of the country etc. According to a report by the World Bank, in any country, national defense gets the highest amount of government funding every year during the National Budget announcements, while the lowest benefactors are Arts and Tourism. The governments, throughout the world, are trying to develop the art as an industry. Now the question arises, should this little funding be considered as a spendthrift idea?
Let us consider, for instance, a tribal village, known as Ramchandrapur, in the state of Odisha, India, where people communicate with each other by drawing on the walls of their houses or huts. The young people receive education from government schools, after which they get employed by the government organizations as Art specialists or Sketch Artists. Suppose, the village stops receiving support from the government. It is hard to imagine their lives without art. The Reserve Bank of India, aka RBI, states that India suffers a staggering unemployment rate of 23%, which certainly cannot be compensated by reducing fund allocation to the arts sector.
On the contrary, one can put forward the percentage of employment generation by the Art industry for common people. For instance, in majority of the countries in the African Continent, people suffer from hunger and unemployment and do not depend of Art for feeding their offspring. If their respective governments spend money on Art, then public outrage against the decision is a sure event. Certainly, hunger and unemployment in African countries are issues that the world is aware of and giant NGOs such as Bill and Melinda Gates Org, are fighting hard to counteract the issues.
Again, in countries such as USA, Japan and Great Britain, the most outstanding overall trend has been that government activity and government support for the arts have expanded tremendously since 1945, post 2nd World War. In the countries without a major prior public commitment to the arts, strong programs had taken root by the 1980s so that government support in those countries now has a significant impact on the arts. In many countries of continental Europe, government ministries with responsibility for the arts already were firmly established by the 1930s. These governments do not compromise funds allocated for arts with other sectoral allocations. According to a New York Times article, Japan’s Anime, have larger fan following Basketball and Olympics combined. In Japan, children are taught to draw, for free, and is a hence Anime industry is a huge employer in the country.
The overriding conclusion that emerges from the above-mentioned points is that government support for the arts is here to stay everywhere in the industrialized world. There has, of course, been a long tradition of state support for the arts on the continent of Europe. What has been the striking development of the postwar years is that state support now appears to be a firmly entrenched component of the political traditions of Great Britain, Ireland, North America and Japan as well. Government involvement has grown impressively at all levels. There has been a growing recognition that the artistic community is a legitimate and worthwhile element of society, as deserving of governmental assistance as are the many other groups that are aided by the state.
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2508
Given Kudos: 1053
GPA: 3.39
Re: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significan
[#permalink]
13 Jul 2021, 20:36
13 Jul 2021, 20:36
2
Expert Reply
3 out of 6 with this one
One prominent reason for this low score is the paraphrasing, the following did not make complete sense, rephrasing may increase your score
[Note: Abbreviations, if used, must be with periods separating the letters (A.B.C. and not ABC)]
Coherence and connectivity: 2.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave![/textarea]
Good Luck
One prominent reason for this low score is the paraphrasing, the following did not make complete sense, rephrasing may increase your score
[Note: Abbreviations, if used, must be with periods separating the letters (A.B.C. and not ABC)]
Coherence and connectivity: 2.5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4.5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave![/textarea]
Good Luck
Souptik wrote:
Topic: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Art is a way of showcasing and describing country’s culture and local traditions. It is useless to compare the impact of an artist and an engineer or a doctor. No one can say that Leonardo Da Vinci is nothing in front of Nicola Tesla. Art includes not only paintings but also theatres, film and music industry, dance etc. One might argue that spending billions of dollars by the film and entertainment industry is a contributing factor to the unemployment of and hunger, but these industries generate huge employment for people with skills such as Sound Engineers, Interior Designers, Architects and of course Lawyers and Doctors. Eradicating hunger and unemployment comprehend a list of factors, which includes allocation of funds for different industries, education of citizens, inflation and overall economic condition of the country and the World as a whole, pandemics and epidemics, natural resources of the country etc. According to a report by the World Bank, in any country, national defense gets the highest amount of government funding every year during the National Budget announcements, while the lowest benefactors are Arts and Tourism. The governments, throughout the world, are trying to develop the art as an industry. Now the question arises, should this little funding be considered as a spendthrift idea?
Let us consider, for instance, a tribal village, known as Ramchandrapur, in the state of Odisha, India, where people communicate with each other by drawing on the walls of their houses or huts. The young people receive education from government schools, after which they get employed by the government organizations as Art specialists or Sketch Artists. Suppose, the village stops receiving support from the government. It is hard to imagine their lives without art. The Reserve Bank of India, aka RBI, states that India suffers a staggering unemployment rate of 23%, which certainly cannot be compensated by reducing fund allocation to the arts sector.
On the contrary, one can put forward the percentage of employment generation by the Art industry for common people. For instance, in majority of the countries in the African Continent, people suffer from hunger and unemployment and do not depend of Art for feeding their offspring. If their respective governments spend money on Art, then public outrage against the decision is a sure event. Certainly, hunger and unemployment in African countries are issues that the world is aware of and giant NGOs such as Bill and Melinda Gates Org, are fighting hard to counteract the issues.
Again, in countries such as USA, Japan and Great Britain, the most outstanding overall trend has been that government activity and government support for the arts have expanded tremendously since 1945, post 2nd World War. In the countries without a major prior public commitment to the arts, strong programs had taken root by the 1980s so that government support in those countries now has a significant impact on the arts. In many countries of continental Europe, government ministries with responsibility for the arts already were firmly established by the 1930s. These governments do not compromise funds allocated for arts with other sectoral allocations. According to a New York Times article, Japan’s Anime, have larger fan following Basketball and Olympics combined. In Japan, children are taught to draw, for free, and is a hence Anime industry is a huge employer in the country.
The overriding conclusion that emerges from the above-mentioned points is that government support for the arts is here to stay everywhere in the industrialized world. There has, of course, been a long tradition of state support for the arts on the continent of Europe. What has been the striking development of the postwar years is that state support now appears to be a firmly entrenched component of the political traditions of Great Britain, Ireland, North America and Japan as well. Government involvement has grown impressively at all levels. There has been a growing recognition that the artistic community is a legitimate and worthwhile element of society, as deserving of governmental assistance as are the many other groups that are aided by the state.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Art is a way of showcasing and describing country’s culture and local traditions. It is useless to compare the impact of an artist and an engineer or a doctor. No one can say that Leonardo Da Vinci is nothing in front of Nicola Tesla. Art includes not only paintings but also theatres, film and music industry, dance etc. One might argue that spending billions of dollars by the film and entertainment industry is a contributing factor to the unemployment of and hunger, but these industries generate huge employment for people with skills such as Sound Engineers, Interior Designers, Architects and of course Lawyers and Doctors. Eradicating hunger and unemployment comprehend a list of factors, which includes allocation of funds for different industries, education of citizens, inflation and overall economic condition of the country and the World as a whole, pandemics and epidemics, natural resources of the country etc. According to a report by the World Bank, in any country, national defense gets the highest amount of government funding every year during the National Budget announcements, while the lowest benefactors are Arts and Tourism. The governments, throughout the world, are trying to develop the art as an industry. Now the question arises, should this little funding be considered as a spendthrift idea?
Let us consider, for instance, a tribal village, known as Ramchandrapur, in the state of Odisha, India, where people communicate with each other by drawing on the walls of their houses or huts. The young people receive education from government schools, after which they get employed by the government organizations as Art specialists or Sketch Artists. Suppose, the village stops receiving support from the government. It is hard to imagine their lives without art. The Reserve Bank of India, aka RBI, states that India suffers a staggering unemployment rate of 23%, which certainly cannot be compensated by reducing fund allocation to the arts sector.
On the contrary, one can put forward the percentage of employment generation by the Art industry for common people. For instance, in majority of the countries in the African Continent, people suffer from hunger and unemployment and do not depend of Art for feeding their offspring. If their respective governments spend money on Art, then public outrage against the decision is a sure event. Certainly, hunger and unemployment in African countries are issues that the world is aware of and giant NGOs such as Bill and Melinda Gates Org, are fighting hard to counteract the issues.
Again, in countries such as USA, Japan and Great Britain, the most outstanding overall trend has been that government activity and government support for the arts have expanded tremendously since 1945, post 2nd World War. In the countries without a major prior public commitment to the arts, strong programs had taken root by the 1980s so that government support in those countries now has a significant impact on the arts. In many countries of continental Europe, government ministries with responsibility for the arts already were firmly established by the 1930s. These governments do not compromise funds allocated for arts with other sectoral allocations. According to a New York Times article, Japan’s Anime, have larger fan following Basketball and Olympics combined. In Japan, children are taught to draw, for free, and is a hence Anime industry is a huge employer in the country.
The overriding conclusion that emerges from the above-mentioned points is that government support for the arts is here to stay everywhere in the industrialized world. There has, of course, been a long tradition of state support for the arts on the continent of Europe. What has been the striking development of the postwar years is that state support now appears to be a firmly entrenched component of the political traditions of Great Britain, Ireland, North America and Japan as well. Government involvement has grown impressively at all levels. There has been a growing recognition that the artistic community is a legitimate and worthwhile element of society, as deserving of governmental assistance as are the many other groups that are aided by the state.
Re: Nations should suspend government funding for the arts when significan
[#permalink]
13 Sep 2021, 08:42
13 Sep 2021, 08:42
Hey could you rate mine?
In times of national crisis and limited government budget, a question often rises. Where should the limited national budget be directed to? Should secondary concerns like art and culture be stopped funding, so that more pertinent issues could be focused on. The prompt suggests that nations should suspend government funding for the arts, especially during national crises when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. I partially agree with the prompt and feel that funding should be diverted to areas like generating employment and feeding the population for the several reasons listed below.
The source of government funding is the taxpayer and it is only fitting that the benefits of government funding should reach the taxpayer directly as soon as possible. While art certainly has its share of benefits for the general populace, it does not directly or immediately benefit the people. For eg: Artisans take several years to commission and build a work of art. Even after developing artwork, it might take several years before the artwork is sold and any monetary benefits can be availed by the government. In contrast, investment in generating employment and better agricultural resources to feed the population will provide fast relief. Measures like stimulating employment using liquidity injection and stopping food exports can have an immediate impact in days, much faster than the years taken by art to generate revenue.
With significant numbers of their citizens hungry or unemployed, the situation can immediately delve into a humanitarian crisis. In many cases such situations can foment dissension against the government and lead to a civil war. The subsequent violence could destroy precious artwork as seen during the Arab Spring in Egypt. During the Arab Revolution against the Mubarak government, in the corresponding civil distress, several ancient Egyptian Pharaoh artworks and artifacts were looted by desperate and hungry people looking for money. Thus, in the interest of protecting art and culture and preventing the situation from becoming worse, it is imperative that government funding should be suspended for arts and used for general development.
However, such a measure should be exercised with appropriate caution. Several governments use the excuse of a crisis to permanently cut funding for artists and intellectuals, even when the crisis is over. To prevent any such hostile action, governments should thoroughly consult with artist bodies before taking any drastic decision to cut funding and provide assurances to the art community at large. If possible,it should also work on arranging alternate sources of funding.
In times of national crisis and limited government budget, a question often rises. Where should the limited national budget be directed to? Should secondary concerns like art and culture be stopped funding, so that more pertinent issues could be focused on. The prompt suggests that nations should suspend government funding for the arts, especially during national crises when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed. I partially agree with the prompt and feel that funding should be diverted to areas like generating employment and feeding the population for the several reasons listed below.
The source of government funding is the taxpayer and it is only fitting that the benefits of government funding should reach the taxpayer directly as soon as possible. While art certainly has its share of benefits for the general populace, it does not directly or immediately benefit the people. For eg: Artisans take several years to commission and build a work of art. Even after developing artwork, it might take several years before the artwork is sold and any monetary benefits can be availed by the government. In contrast, investment in generating employment and better agricultural resources to feed the population will provide fast relief. Measures like stimulating employment using liquidity injection and stopping food exports can have an immediate impact in days, much faster than the years taken by art to generate revenue.
With significant numbers of their citizens hungry or unemployed, the situation can immediately delve into a humanitarian crisis. In many cases such situations can foment dissension against the government and lead to a civil war. The subsequent violence could destroy precious artwork as seen during the Arab Spring in Egypt. During the Arab Revolution against the Mubarak government, in the corresponding civil distress, several ancient Egyptian Pharaoh artworks and artifacts were looted by desperate and hungry people looking for money. Thus, in the interest of protecting art and culture and preventing the situation from becoming worse, it is imperative that government funding should be suspended for arts and used for general development.
However, such a measure should be exercised with appropriate caution. Several governments use the excuse of a crisis to permanently cut funding for artists and intellectuals, even when the crisis is over. To prevent any such hostile action, governments should thoroughly consult with artist bodies before taking any drastic decision to cut funding and provide assurances to the art community at large. If possible,it should also work on arranging alternate sources of funding.
