Nowadays a number of people in the United Kingdom totally disagree that the government supports museums and galleries and spends huge sums of money. They say that it is too much for culture and the country has other difficulties such as environmental pollution, overcrowding and salaries.


I understand why people disagree with the government's decision, but I totally agree. First of all, subsidising the visual and performing arts really supports the economy of the country because it attracts many people to visit the United Kingdom. In the end they bring more money than the government invested into this project. Secondly, one it keeps history. From my point of view, it is more important than money, because without memories about the past the United Kingdom will lose its individuality.


On the one hand, spending too much money on arts can't be a perfect solution. On the other hand, if authorities give money to support the other structures, for example ,education, environment ,social programs, it is not a problem. It means that culture is really important for the United Kingdom’s government. Although I have never been there and when I see news on TV or watch videos on the internet I immediately understand where museums and galleries are situated.


I am completely sure, if I came to the United Kingdom I would come first go to see the cultural attractions. It is the best way to get to know local traditions. And I hope that the government and people who live there will find a wise solution in any situation.

What was the exact question/prompt for that essay?

The government spends about 220 mln pounds a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK, and a similar amount subsidising visual and perfoming arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. What are your views?

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?

The government spends about 220 mln pounds a year supporting museums and galleries in the UK, and a similar amount subsidising visual and perfoming arts. This is a huge sum to spend on minority interests, and the money would be better spent on more important things. It should be up to the people who enjoy cultural attractions to pay for them. What are your views?

Nowadays a number of people in the United Kingdom totally disagree that the with financial government support for s museums and galleries. and spends huge sums of money. They say that it is too much for culture and the country has other difficulties priorities such as environmental pollution, overcrowding and low salaries. [ 1] I understand why some people may disagree with the government spending on arts and heritage, 's decision, but I firmly [ 2] totally agree with them.

First of all, subsidising the visual and performing arts really [ 3] has several benefits. It supports the economy of the country because it attracts many people to visit the United Kingdom, and In the end they those visitors bring more money into the country than what the government invested [ 4] invests into this sector. [ 5] project. Secondly, one it keeps Moreover, museums and art galleries preserve history. From my point of view, it this is more important than money, because without memories about the past, the United Kingdom will lose its individuality. [ 5]

---------------------------------------------------------

[ 1]: You need to state your position at the end of the introduction, not in the first body paragraph.

[ 2]: “totally” is not wrong, but I used “firmly” to avoid repetition.

[ 3]: The topic sentence of a body paragraph should cover the scope of the entire paragraph (not just the first point).

[ 4]: Why did you use the past simple there?!

[ 5]: You get better marks if you can give an example to illustrate/support a point.

Your second body paragraph is not clear at all. You could talk about how private sponsorship is not enough/ideal to finance museums and maintain a healthy arts sector. Revise your essay and repost it below if you like.

Thank you very much teacher!! I tried to improve it but this time it took me a very long time. First time I wrote it quickly, like at the exam. I would really appreciate it if you could say what band approximately my first version could get?

Every year the United Kingdom government spends significant sums of money for the support of fine arts. There are those who support this distribution of budget, but other people disagree with such huge financial support for museums and galleries. They say the country has other priorities, such as environmental pollution, overcrowding and low salaries. I understand why some people may feel this way, but I firmly believe in state support for arts and heritage.

First of all, subsidising the visual and performing arts has several benefits. It supports the economy of the country because it attracts many people to visit the United Kingdom, and those visitors bring more money into the country than what the government invests into this sector. Moreover, museums and art galleries preserve history. From my point of view, this is more important than money, because without memories about the past, the United Kingdom will lose its individuality. Finally, the true art gives new ideas and impulses to the development of the society. It may not be very popular, but without it mass culture and entertainment will have lower quality and even can become primitive.

It is true that other spheres such as education and medicine also need money. After those basic sectors are covered, enough money should go to support culture. I believe that culture is equally important for people, just like food or knowledge or medicine to treat diseases.

All things considered, fine arts cannot exist without a government support, but they are really important for the development of the society. They may generate some income and support themselves, but without the state financing they would not survive, and the society would lose a lot of spiritual and humanitarian values.

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies

I asked you to pay attention to my corrections and use them to fix your essay, but you have changed the original substantially. We won't get anywhere if I have to keep correcting new text. Also, your second body paragraph does not present a clear point/argument to support your position. You have two choices at this stage:

1- Start from scratch with this essay.

2- Forget about this topic and choose another.

Let me know which one you prefer, but please do not write any new essay for now.

I realise it was changed substantially but that is because you said my second paragraph was not clear at all, and my topic sentence did not cover the ideas in the paragraph. I did try to follow your comments, honestly! Sorry if it went wrong (( I do appreciate all your comments and corrections, but what I really need at the moment is some understanding where I stand with my writing, whether my IELTS band might be about what I need or much lower. Have you got any ideas what band my essay could be worth? This is my main question. If you can, please advise. And thanks again!

Your second body paragraph is still no good. Take a look at my reply in the following link to learn about essay structure.

https://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayAgreeDisagreeYoungEnjoyLife-Older/bjnlwx/post.htm

I would say the above would get a 6.0, or 6.5 at a stretch, but no more.

PM me if you decide to tackle another topic.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.