+1

Topic: The government gives lots of support to artists, even though some people think it is a waste of money that could have been spent better elsewhere. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

My essay

Some would argue that it is correct for the government to finance artists, while other people think that there are other projects that need more attention. While artists need loans and grants from the government budget at the beginning of their careers to establish their reputation, I believe state funds should be used for public healthcare.

On one hand, painters and sculptors are thought to receive financial supports from the government because they are not known by many people. They, therefore, need financial support to bring their work of arts to the public by opening their own exhibitions or building up websites in order to promote their names and masterpieces. This stage tends to cost a considerable amount of money and without government support, I think they could find it hard to do it. For example, Canada has recently introduced a Canadian Artist Benefit program for young artists who are in need of financial support to open their galleries. However, I believe that individual and society as a whole can benefit more if the government spend more money on healthcare.

One the other hand, there are those that believe that the government budget should be used for public healthcare that could be more urgent than art. In many developed countries, there are so many incurable diseases such as obesity-related diseases that need more attention and investment from the government. For instance, a recent study by York University found that some developed countries in the South East Asia region including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia just spent 1 million dollars on healthcare service which took a tiny fraction of this wealth territory. I believe this opinion is preferable because it benefits both individuals and society as a whole.

In conclusion, although helping those working in the arts are needed at the beginning of their career, in the long term arts cannot help people get a better life considering their physical and mental health and it is, therefore, better if funding health should be prioritized.

Thank you

+0

Your essay is a bit too long, over 330 words when the minimum is 250.

You will not lose points for writing more; however, longer essays generally do not get high scores. There are many reasons. First, the longer the essay, the more chances you have to make errors, and you will lose points for these errors. Second, your writing may be repetitious and wordy. This will cost you points. Third, you will likely stray off-topic, and examiners will deduct points if you are not focused on the topic. Fourth, you will take a lot of time writing, and not have time left over to proofread your essay. You will miss the silly mistakes, and that lowers your score. Fifth, you will not have enough time to spend on Task 1, and get a lower score there.

Moral of the story:

Aim to write about 260-280 words, safely more than the minimum, but not too long. It just takes practice.



Some would argue that it is correct for the government to finance artists, while other people think that there are other projects that need more attention. While artists need loans and grants from the government budget at the beginning of their careers to establish their reputation, I believe state funds should be not be used for them, but for public healthcare. (Your original sentence was not clear. )

On one hand, painters and sculptors ( The topic also includes writers and musicians.) require / need are thought to receive (That is off-topic.) financial supports (Wrong form. Support is non-count) from the government because they are not known by many people. They, therefore, need financial support (repetitious. use other words) money / funds / resources to bring their work of arts (wrong form; the phrase is "work of art" and the plural is "works of art") to the public by opening their own exhibitions or building up websites in order to promote their names and sell their creations. masterpieces. This stage tends to cost a considerable amount of money and without government support, I think they could find it hard to do it. For example, Canada has recently introduced a Canadian Artist Benefit program for young artists who are in need of financial support (repetitious. ) to open their galleries. However, I believe that individual (One person?) and society as a whole can benefit more if the government spend more money on healthcare. (This sentence belongs in a different paragraph. This paragraph is arguing the first viewpoint; that governments should give money to budding artists. Make sure you have only one point in each paragraph.)

One the other hand, there are those that believe that taxes the government budget should be used for public healthcare (public healthcare is not mentioned in the topic. There are many other items that others might advocate such as transportation infrastructure, feeding the poor, improving the schools, and funding pension programs for the elderly.) that could be more urgent than art. In many developed countries, there are so many incurable diseases such as obesity-related diseases (repetitious. use other words) that need more attention and investment from the government. For instance, a recent study by York University found that some developing developed countries in the South East Asia region including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia just spent 1 million dollars on healthcare service which took a tiny fraction of this wealth territory. (wrong phrase) I believe this opinion is preferable because it benefits both individuals and society as a whole. (repetitious. use other words. )


In conclusion, although helping those working in the arts are needed (wrong verb form. Subject/verb mismatch) at the beginning of their career, in the long term arts cannot help people get a better life considering their physical and mental health and it is, therefore, better if funding health should be prioritized. (This sentence is too convoluted and wordy. Also, it is not good to have only one sentence in a paragraph.)

Comments  

Hi. It is well written piece, free of grammatical errors for most parts. However, a common problem I found was redundancy. I have pointed out a few cases where the subject matter could be condensed.

"While artists need loans and grants from the government budget at the beginning of their careers to establish their reputation...", consider condensing this. "While artists require government aid at the start of their careers" could be a better fit.

"On one hand, painters and sculptors are thought to receive financial supports from the government because they are not known by many people. They, therefore, need financial support to bring their work of arts to the public by opening their own exhibitions or building up websites in order to promote their names and masterpieces.", seems a bit wordy, consider shortening this.

"One the other hand", on

"some developed countries in the South East Asia region including Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia", I do not think these countries come under the developed category.

And try to conclude better.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Thank you so much for your feedback. I really appreciate that

 AlpheccaStars's reply was promoted to an answer.