issue 190 第一篇，多谢指教
"As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."There has always been great difference between the living conditions of people in a society. So we can take the scene that while rich ones lavishly spend lots of money on so-called "luxuries" such as arts and other things to live better mentally, poor ones may be starving in the corner of street without a place against bad weather. Such being the case, an argumental problem arises: "should we utilize the public resources to support arts?" or even "should we ignore the poverty in a society on purpose?" In my opinion, the answer is clear: although the striving of some people's living should be placed great importance on, the retaining of arts is also paramount. In the following, I will explain my viewpoints in such following facets.
In the first place, a distinct factor that prevents human beings from animals is that human beings require mental fulfillment, which can only be provided by immaterial factors such as arts. In the endless developing process of human beings, people are becoming more and more dependent on the immaterial factors, without which people will probably be not themselves now. It is difficult to conceive that in a world which is in the absence of television, broadcast, newspaper, literature, music and so on people can also make lives at ease as now. Arts are the outlet of people's emotion, through which people can express themselves and be recognized by others. "The Goddess of Liberty", which is presented by France, represents peace, independence, democracy and so on, records the great variation of American society, and reflects the society's desire at that time.
In the second place, the author unfairly assumes that arts have no positive effects on people's life. Actually, arts cover a considerable numerous areas, such as painting, photography, sculpture, movie, music, literature and so on, which can either inspire people or give them motivation to strive for better condition. In history, there are many such successful examples. "Uncle Tom's Hut", which is composed by Ms Stow, is such an instance. This composition describes the opposition to slavery of most people at that time, representing people's call for democracy. Under its influence, people picked up guns to go against the slavery and for the equal human rights, and then the Civil War calling for democracy broke out. "Liberty Leading the People", the work of Delarcroix in 1937, consists another example. The painting describes a coalesced strength against the atrocity, which calls more and more people into the righteous war. Such examples are too many to be listed out. In a word, it is arts that motivate people to change their rough conditions.
Moreover, arts abolish the shackles posed by the reality on people. In arts, people can experience what they cannot meet with forever in realities, which give them much satisfaction mentally. That is the reason why so many persons like to read detective novels and science fiction. In some sense, arts provide mental food to both rich and poor people.
However, this is not to say that arts is more important than economics, nor even that government should put more money in arts instead of in supporting the poor. After all, survival is the basic need of people, without which nothing can be established. How much input to arts and what ratio it holds in the budget of a nation need to be adjusted to the specific situation the nation lies in.
To sum up, the statement of the author is too short-sighted. The arts and support to the poor should not be exclusive to each other. In stead, they may interweave well. For example, maybe the jobless people who have no basic skills to survive can make a life by cleaning the floor of a museum or theatre. Consequently, we should not perish the arts' development but give support to it as much as possible. "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
There has always been great difference between the living conditions of people in a society. So we can take the scene that while rich ones lavishly spend lots of money on so-called "luxuries" such as arts and other things to live better mentally, poor ones may be starving in the corner of street without a place against bad weather. Such being the case, an argumental problem arises: "should we utilize the public resources to support arts?" or even "should we ignore the poverty in a society on purpose?" In my opinion, the answer is clear: although the striving of some people's living should be placed great importance on, the retaining of arts is also paramount. In the following, I will explain my viewpoints in such following facets.
In the first place, a distinct factor that prevents human beings from animals is that human beings require mental fulfillment, which can only be provided by immaterial factors such as arts. In the endless developing process of human beings, people are becoming more and more dependent on the immaterial factors, without which people will probably be not themselves now. It is difficult to conceive that in a world which is in the absence of television, broadcast, newspaper, literature, music and so on people can also make lives at ease as now. Arts are the outlet of people's emotion, through which people can express themselves and be recognized by others. "The Goddess of Liberty", which is presented by France, represents peace, independence, democracy and so on, records the great variation of American society, and reflects the society's desire at that time. ()
In the second place, the author unfairly assumes that arts have no positive effects on people's life. Actually, arts cover a considerable numerous areas, such as painting, photography, sculpture, movie, music, literature and so on, which can either inspire people or give them motivation to strive for better condition. In history, there are many such successful examples. "Uncle Tom's Hut", which is composed by Ms Stow, is such an instance. This composition describes the opposition to slavery of most people at that time, representing people's call for democracy. Under its influence, people picked up guns to go against the slavery and for the equal human rights, and then the Civil War calling for democracy broke out. "Liberty Leading the People", the work of Delarcroix in 1937, consists another example. The painting describes a coalesced strength against the atrocity, which calls more and more people into the righteous war. Such examples are too many to be listed out. In a word, it is arts that motivate people to change their rough conditions.
Moreover, arts abolish the shackles posed by the reality on people. In arts, people can experience what they cannot meet with forever in realities, which give them much satisfaction mentally. That is the reason why so many persons like to read detective novels and science fiction. In some sense, arts provide mental food to both rich and poor people.
However, this is not to say that arts is more important than economics, nor even that government should put more money in arts instead of in supporting the poor. After all, survival is the basic need of people, without which nothing can be established. How much input to arts and what ratio it holds in the budget of a nation need to be adjusted to the specific situation the nation lies in.(you are very familiar with art ,but I think your demonstration about the poor is not substantive)
To sum up, the statement of the author is too short-sighted. The arts and support to the poor should not be exclusive to each other. In stead, they may interweave well. For example, maybe the jobless people who have no basic skills to survive can make a life by cleaning the floor of a museum or theatre. Consequently, we should not perish the arts' development but give support to it as much as possible. 谢谢wangyang。
youyi43029希望先看版面顶楼的公告，注意发贴的格式。issue和题号之间不要空格，这样便于版面以后的整理，谢谢。希望你也能多多修改其他朋友的文章。尤其是提点结构上和想法上的建议。因为你不可能每个题目都练过来啊，看别人的题目，自己脑子过一遍,既可以给别人提建议，自己又多了一次训练的机会.为别人服务的人优先得到斑竹的修改哦！ Thx
help
由于本人2.12就要考了，能不能请各位高手纠一下整个思维、逻辑上的错误？ 语法我就不改了。我高中语法就没学好，不把对的改成错的就很了不起了：P"As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."
There has always been great difference between the living conditions of people in a society. So we can take the scene that while rich ones lavishly spend lots of money on so-called "luxuries" such as arts and other things to live better mentally, poor ones may be starving in the corner of street without a place against bad weather. Such being the case, an argumental problem arises: "should we utilize the public resources to support arts?" or even "should we ignore the poverty in a society on purpose?" In my opinion, the answer is clear: although the striving of some people's living should be placed great importance on, the retaining of arts is also paramount. In the following, I will explain my viewpoints in such following facets.（题目里提到的是public resource,因此富人消费了什么其实是没有关系的，那是private property）
In the first place, a distinct factor that prevents human beings from animals （不确定prevent from是不是可以这样用？）is that human beings require mental fulfillment, which can only be provided by immaterial factors such as arts. In the endless developing process of human beings, people are becoming more and more dependent on the immaterial factors（这个好象没什么根据，其实只要说明immaterial factors不能缺少就可以了）, without which people will probably be not themselves now. It is difficult to conceive that in a world which is in the absence of television, broadcast, newspaper, literature, music and so on people can also make lives at ease as now.（这些东西不但和ARTS没有关系而且说明了即使没有ARTS人类也还有这么多精神食粮） Arts are the outlet of people's emotion, through which people can express themselves and be recognized by others. "The Goddess of Liberty", which is presented by France, （这个解释没有必要）represents peace, independence, democracy and so on（已经够了，不需要so on了）, records the great variation of American society（how...）, and reflects the society's desire at that time.
In the second place, the author unfairly assumes that arts have no positive effects on people's life.（when?） Actually, arts cover a considerable numerous areas, such as painting, photography, sculpture, movie, music, literature and so on, which can either inspire people or give them motivation to strive for better condition. In history, there are many such successful examples. "Uncle Tom's Hut", which is composed by Ms Stow（同样是没必要的解释，美国人肯定比你清楚。假如是中国的解释一下还可以）, is such an instance. This composition describes the opposition to slavery of most people at that time, representing people's call for democracy. Under its influence, people picked up guns to go against the slavery and for the equal human rights, and then the Civil War calling for democracy broke out（这个例子的引述从逻辑因果关系到其目的都不是很恰当。建议回头看看题目，想想这个例子要说明什么？）. "Liberty Leading the People", the work of Delarcroix in 1937（ft...）, consists（用词...） another example. The painting describes a coalesced strength against the atrocity, which calls more and more people into the righteous war.（不是打击你，但是请你想一下美国的黑奴有多少看过那本书，巴黎的市民又有多少看过这幅画。） Such examples are too many to be listed out. In a word, it is arts that motivate people to change their rough conditions.
Moreover, arts abolish the shackles posed by the reality on people. In arts, people can experience what they cannot meet with forever in realities, which give them much satisfaction mentally. That is the reason why so many persons like to read detective novels and science fiction（这是不是ARTS很难说的）. In some sense, arts provide mental food to both rich and poor people.
However, this is not to say that arts is more important than economics, nor even that government should put more money in arts instead of in supporting the poor. After all, survival is the basic need of people, without which nothing can be established. How much input to arts and what ratio it holds in the budget of a nation need to be adjusted to the specific situation the nation lies in.(you are very familiar with art ,but I think your demonstration about the poor is not substantive)
To sum up, the statement of the author is too short-sighted. The arts and support to the poor should not be exclusive to each other. In stead, they may interweave well. For example, maybe the jobless people who have no basic skills to survive can make a life by cleaning the floor of a museum or theatre（ft...）. Consequently, we should not perish the arts' development but give support to it as much as possible.
建议你写一个简短的中文提纲，把TS，逻辑顺序，引用的例子和目的标注清楚。
页:
[1]