+0

TOPIC: Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is little room for doubt that state funding should be directed towards the betterment of citizens’ life quality. Because of this, what authority should spend on remains a source of constant debate. It is believed that government subsidies should be diverted to artists who receive a meager income as their contribution is of tremendous benefit to the public. However, I have mixed opinions on this.


It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that artists who have below-average income merit financial aid from the government. The key rationale is that arts help preserve national identity, a country’s distinctive culture and its values may be at stake if efforts are not put into protecting creators as well as cultural heritage. At the same time, a plethora of talented painters is consigned to oblivion and forced to give up their artistic path while searching for career opportunities. It is attributed to their lack of financial support to produce works of art and bring the works displayed in museums or art galleries.


Notwithstanding the paramount importance of artists, I am convinced that public expenditure should be allocated to all domains which are in an economic predicament in order of precedence. For example, in light of Covid-19 outbreaks, a number of urgent situations require state spending such as health services and agriculture activities, which make direct impacts on economics and the quality of people’s life. Furthermore, there are numerous people living in chronic indigence who are struggling to maintain their life, so they are the ones who need the authority’s attention more than any others. Alternatively, artisans can call for investment from individual institutions and organizations which have particular concerns for this sector.


In conclusion, while there are good justifications for subsidizing struggling artists to help them sustain their work and passion, I believe state budgets should be injected equally and artists could rely on alternative sources of sponsorship.

+0

There is little room for doubt that state funding should be directed towards the betterment of citizens’ life quality. (wrong expression) quality of life. Because of this, what authority should spend on remains a source of constant debate. (There is no debate. There is no controversy. Students memorize words such as "debate" and "public attention" and use them as a fixed response to Task 2 opinion essays. Examiners do not reward memorized responses like this one. Delete this sentence. ) It is believed that government subsidies should be diverted to artists who receive a meager income as their contribution is of tremendous benefit to the public. However, I have mixed opinions on this.

(You did not answer the essay prompt. It is: To what extent do you agree or disagree?

You must answer with an adverb of degree. Do you know these adverbs? )

It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that artists who have below-average income merit financial aid from the government. The key rationale is that arts help preserve national identity, (Your sentence loses its integrity here. It is an error called a comma splice.) a country’s distinctive culture and its values may be at stake if efforts are not put into protecting the creators who express its as well as cultural heritage. At the same time, a plethora (wrong word. ) of talented painters is (wrong verb form. ) consigned to oblivion and (wrong usage - they do not die and are forgotten. ) forced to give up their artistic path to find other while searching for career opportunities. It is attributed to their They lack financial support to produce works of art and bring the works displayed in museums or art galleries.(Ungrammatical)

Notwithstanding the paramount importance of artists, I am convinced that (Do not write your opinions in the body paragraphs. The opinions are in the first paragraph. The body paragraphs have argument points supporting your opinions.) public expenditure should be allocated to all segments of society domains which are facing economic hardship in an economic predicament in order of precedence. For example, in light of the Covid-19 outbreaks, a number of urgent situations require state spending such as health services and agriculture activities, which make a direct impacts on economics the nation's economy and the quality of people’s lives. Furthermore, there are numerous people living in chronic indigence poverty who are struggling to maintain their life, so they are the ones who need the authority’s attention more than any others. Alternatively, artisans artists can call for investment from individual institutions and organizations which have particular concerns for them. this sector.

In conclusion, while there are good justifications for subsidizing struggling artists to help them sustain their work and passion, I believe state budgets should be injected equally distributed according to need and artists could rely on alternative sources of sponsorship.

Comments  

Most artists earn low salaries and should therefore receive funding from the government in order for them to continue with their work.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is little room for doubt that state funding should be directed towards the betterment of citizens’ life quality. Because of this, what authority should spend on remains a source of constant debate. It is believed that government subsidies should be diverted to artists who receive a meager income as their contribution is of tremendous benefit to the public. However, I have mixed opinions on this.

It is understandable why some people subscribe to the view that artists who have below-average income merit financial aid from the government. The key rationale is that arts help preserve national identity, a country’s distinctive culture and its values may be at stake if efforts are not put into protecting creators as well as cultural heritage. At the same time, a plethora of talented painters is consigned to oblivion and forced to give up their artistic path while searching for career opportunities. It is attributed to their lack of financial support to produce works of art and bring the works displayed in museums or art galleries.

Notwithstanding the paramount importance of artists, I am convinced that public expenditure should be allocated to all domains which are in an economic predicament in order of precedence. For example, in light of Covid-19 outbreaks, a number of urgent situations require state spending such as health services and agriculture activities, which make direct impacts on economics and the quality of people’s life. Furthermore, there are numerous people living in chronic indigence who are struggling to maintain their life, so they are the ones who need the authority’s attention more than any others. Alternatively, artisans can call for investment from individual institutions and organizations which have particular concerns for this sector.

In conclusion, while there are good justifications for subsidizing struggling artists to help them sustain their work and passion, I believe state budgets should be injected equally and artists could rely on alternative sources of sponsorship.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
 AlpheccaStars's reply was promoted to an answer.

Thank you for your feedback!

Let me know if my last sentence in the introduction can be replaced by "Although this belief is partly right, I would argue that financial assistance from the government should be prioritized for pressing social problems.

What should I write for the last sentence in the body paragraph 1 to make it more clearly and attractive?

Many thanks!

mytraaLet me know if my last sentence in the introduction can be replaced by "Although this belief is partly right, I would argue that financial assistance from the government should be prioritized for pressing social problems.

The examiner is looking for an answer to this question: To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is good to know a good handful of adverbs of extent because this is a very common prompt in IELTS Task 2 essays. For example: " I partly agree." " I totally disagree". "I agree, but with some reservations."

Complete agreement / disagreement:
------------

completely
fully
totally
wholeheartedly
unreservedly
with no reservations
without reservation
unequivocally
unquestionably
with no hesitation
unconditionally

Partial agreement / disagreement:
----------------

somewhat
partially
partly
to some extent / to a limited extent / to a point
with (some / certain / a few) reservations
conditionally

Slight agreement / disagreement:
----------------

a little (bit)
--------------------

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

Thanks a lot for your advice! I will try my best to improve my writing skill.