[color=blue]issue101[/color] 呵呵，最近特意为版面做些工作才敢贴的啊
101"Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people."因为最近看了pooh的艺术类素材，所以选了一个艺术类题目来练习，没有完全按imong的特训里留下的作业来做。
这是一个倾向性命题（should）, 也是imong的1+1命题(so that, 因果关系)。对于“should”，我的回应是unnecessary and inappropriate；对于“因果”，我的回应是“并不导致必然结果”
提纲其实很常见的：
1． 开头：政府资助艺术家不合适
2． 政府资助危害艺术的完整性（85题）
3． 政府资助艺术家不合适，相比还有更紧迫的问题要解决（190题）
4． 政府资助并不必然导致艺术的繁荣
5． 结论
Arts are an effective and beautiful tool for people to express their feelings and desires, which become part of our daily lives. In recent days, there are many debates that whether government should patronize artists in order to flourish arts and make them be available to all people. As far as I am concerned, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the government to support artists at least for three reasons.
First and foremost, governmental funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. Arts, characterized by providing pleasure and conveying beauty, are artists' full self-expression. Artists usually use their fantastic imagination and marvelous creation to produce works in their own realms. Although governmental funding may ensure those artists who are lack of commercial head don't need to struggle for making a living, it may also disturb their normal artistic work creations. For one thing, in order to get the government sponsorship, the artists are more likely to be too busy to becoming involved in subsidized programs. They spent time in finding the answers such as what government's preference is, how to get the sponsorship, etc. Thus they couldn't concentrate on their whole heart to produce works of art. For another, consciously or unconsciously or not, those artists who get the governmental funding are becoming to function for the government, they produce works to meet the government taste or for the purpose of government, while have no courage to express their own feelings to the society through their works. In short, government funding hinders artists to deliver their thoughts freely thus destroys the integrity of the arts. (自己的写完后的反思：integrity指什么，论述清楚了么？指论证是否说明不integrity?)
Secondly, subsidizing artists is not a proper role for government at public expense. The major functions of government are to prompt the development of its economy, to maintain social stability, to warrant people's safety and the integrity of its land, as well as to tackle with various national and international affairs. Especially, consider people in a society who are in the state of unemployment, famish, poverty, etc.. It more or less seems a little brutal for the government to supporting establish an art museum while its people have no place to live in, and it also seems a bit ridiculous for people in hungry to appreciating any artistic works. So it is more urgent for the government to use the funding to solve those more pressing and more impending problems instead of supporting artistic works after weighting the importance of all problems to be solved.
Last but not the least, governmental funding for artists will not always lead to the corollary to the flourish of the arts. With the government endowments, the audiences that view or consume arts would not be controlled by the marketplace, thus they have more accesses to various artistical works, which would make arts be more popular to all people. Yet artworks’ popularizing does not mean the flourish of the arts. Artwork's true value and sustainable vitality is embodied by its inherent soul and impressive power, which can arouse people's emotion and inner resonance whenever encounter it. Government funding may improve artists' living standard to some extent, but it could never endow artists' with imagination and creation to produce that kind of great artworks. Consider, Van Gogh, for example, he would not have the immortal works of the painting Sunflowers if he lived in a comfortable life in his period.
In conclusion, it is not necessary for the government to support artists, because it may hinder artists full self-expressing, and thus threatens the integrity of the arts. Moreover, there are more of substantial problems, which are hungry for the government financial supporting. Finally, arts' value and flourish lies in not the government funding, but the artists' marvelous creation embodied in their works. Arts are an effective and beautiful tool for people to express their feelings and desires, which become part of our daily lives.（从句seems有误） In recent days, there are many debates that（that-->on） whether government should patronize artists in order to flourish arts and make them be available to all people. As far as I am concerned, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the government to support artists at least for three reasons.
First and foremost, governmental funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.（呵呵，从其它题目来的灵感？） Arts, characterized by （这里少个its？）providing pleasure and conveying beauty, are artists' full（...any alternative???） self-expression. Artists usually use（apply？） their fantastic imagination and marvelous creation to produce（前面用apply的话整个句子可以写成apply .... in the production of） works in their own realms. Although governmental funding may ensure those artists who are lack of commercial head（这是啥？） don't need to struggle for making a living, it may also disturb their normal artistic work creations. For one thing, in order to get the government sponsorship, the artists are more likely to be too busy to becoming involved in subsidized programs. They spent time in finding the answers such as what government's preference is, how to get the sponsorship, etc. Thus they couldn't concentrate on their whole heart to produce works of art（To produce the works of art可能还是不够劲儿，突出一下governmental influence前后的彼此差异）. For another, consciously or unconsciously or（这么快就两个or？？） not, those artists who get the governmental funding are becoming to（语态不好） function for the government, they produce works to meet the government taste or for the purpose of government, while have no courage to express their own feelings to the society through their works. In short, government funding hinders artists to deliver their thoughts freely thus destroys the integrity of the arts. (自己的写完后的反思：integrity指什么，论述清楚了么？指论证是否说明不integrity?)
前面提出integrity而后面其实说的是governmental influence，中间有点差异吧....要不然就要交待一下，要不然就直接说governmental influence... which is 如何如何不好
而且我觉得你的for one thing for another说的是一回事....还不如合在一块儿把前因后果清清楚楚说明白的。
Secondly, subsidizing artists is not a proper role（用词有点诡异...） for government at public expense.（前面也是，有些时候短语和短成分位置接的不好，例如这个at public expense，如果要是写进来，肯定是紧接着subsidizing artists的后面） The major functions of government are to prompt the development of its economy, to maintain social stability, to warrant people's safety and the integrity of its land, as well as to tackle with various national and international affairs. Especially, consider people in a society who are in the state of unemployment, famish, poverty, etc..（again your point derive from other issues？ That‘s really good！——Of course，be sure to make it clear） It more or less（这里more or less倒不如——可能要换个词——放在前面做前置成分了） seems a little brutal for the government to supporting establish an art museum while its people have no place to live in, and it also seems a bit ridiculous for people in hungry to appreciating any artistic works. So（这里so的不是很顺利） it is more urgent for the government to use the funding to solve those more pressing and more impending problems instead of supporting artistic works after weighting the importance of all problems to be solved. （论证的还不够有力，你只是举出了if its people are hungry，what if not？我想关键还在于一种contrast吧——说明“艺术”在“本职”工作面前非常“没地位”etc......虽然也许有些诡辩，但是只要能给说明白是能够“立论”成功的。）
Last but not the least, governmental funding for artists will not always lead to the corollary to the flourish of the arts.（写may not flourish和may damage是一回事....哪个更好呢？） With the government endowments, the audiences that view or consume arts（这样子搭配吗？） would not be controlled by the marketplace（没懂）, thus they have more accesses to various artistical works,（没懂2） which would make arts be more popular to all people. Yet artworks’ popularizing（popularity？这个词我也不确定啊，没查） does not mean the flourish 词性 of the arts. Artwork's true value and sustainable vitality is embodied by（介词错，in） its inherent soul and impressive power, which can arouse people's emotion and inner resonance whenever encounter it. Government funding may improve artists' living standard to some extent, but it could never endow artists' with imagination and creation to produce that kind of great artworks. Consider, Van Gogh, for example, he would not have the immortal works of the painting Sunflowers if he lived in a comfortable life in his period.
这一段论点和你的b1疑似严重重叠。。。
实际上，无非是命题的前半和后半：确立funding是damage the integrity，and 明确 cannot help flourish，这里怎么把握可能要琢磨一下....我暂时也不太sure, 看看范文里面的递进是怎么写的？
其实我觉得你的主要论证就是两个方面，也许可以考虑调整组织顺序然后各自充实的。
In conclusion, it is not necessary for the government to support artists, because it may hinder artists full self-expressing, and thus threatens the integrity of the arts. Moreover, there are more of substantial problems, which are hungry for the government financial supporting. Finally, arts' value and flourish lies in not the government funding, but the artists' marvelous creation embodied in their works. 比较俗的总结.....慢慢练习能不能弄点更好的。 正好再说说你的提纲
thesis 政府资助艺术家不合适
b1 政府资助危害艺术的完整性
这里是不是存在一个value：危害艺术的完整性损害艺术的繁荣？
b1好像又是一个论据做论点，或者说是不涉及价值判断的事实陈述了.....
当然绝不是说“不允许单独开上一段讲论据”，问题在于，如果你的b1真的是“讲论据”的话，为何紧接的b2不是现在文章的b3呢？
而如果，你本来就把“艺术的完整性”和“艺术的繁荣”划等号的话，那就是直接的重复论点了。 101"Governments should provide funding for artists so that the arts can flourish and be available to all people."
因为最近看了pooh的艺术类素材，所以选了一个艺术类题目来练习，没有完全按imong的特训里留下的作业来做。
这是一个倾向性命题（should）, 也是imong的1+1命题(so that, 因果关系)。对于“should”，我的回应是unnecessary and inappropriate；对于“因果”，我的回应是“并不导致必然结果”
提纲其实很常见的：
1． 开头：政府资助艺术家不合适
2． 政府资助危害艺术的完整性（85题）
3． 政府资助艺术家不合适，相比还有更紧迫的问题要解决（190题）
4． 政府资助并不必然导致艺术的繁荣
5． 结论
Arts are an effective and beautiful tool for people to express their feelings and desires, which become part of our daily lives. In recent days, there are many debates that whether government should patronize artists in order to flourish arts and make them be available to all people. As far as I am concerned, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the government to support artists at least for three reasons. 看了一下提纲，我只看出inapproriate没有看出unnecessary。TS有问题
First and foremost, governmental funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts. Arts, characterized by providing pleasure and conveying beauty, are artists' full self-expression. Artists usually use their fantastic imagination and marvelous creation to produce works in their own realms. Although governmental funding may ensure those artists who are lack of commercial head don't don't?病句，不通。哦，看懂了ensure后面是从句。加上that吧正式一点 need to struggle for making a living, it may also disturb their normal artistic work creations. For one thing, in order to get the government sponsorship, the artists are more likely to be too busy to becoming involved in subsidized programs. They spent time in finding the answers such as what government's preference is, how to get the sponsorship, etc. Thus they couldn't concentrate on their whole heart to produce works of art. For another, consciously or unconsciously or not, those artists who get the governmental funding are becoming to function for the government, they produce works to meet the government taste or for the purpose of government, while have no courage to express their own feelings to the society through their works. In short, government funding hinders artists to deliver their thoughts freely thus destroys the integrity of the arts. (自己的写完后的反思：integrity指什么，论述清楚了么？指论证是否说明不integrity?)
这段关于integrity讲了两个理由，但是前一个理由我觉得和integrity不沾边。可能你我对于integrity的理解不一样。我的理解是，政府资助艺术实际上使得艺术沦为政府附庸。由于政府资助的导向作用会使艺术畸形发展：某些政府提倡的方面得到长足的发展，另一些则趋于消亡。实际上类似于你的第二个理由。所以我觉得第二个理由应该再详细些，第一个理由删掉。当然，如果你的理解不一样也可以提出来讨论一下
Secondly, subsidizing artists is not a proper role for government at public expense. The major functions of government are to prompt the development of its economy, to maintain social stability, to warrant people's safety and the integrity of its land, as well as to tackle with various national and international affairs. Especially, consider people in a society who are in the state of unemployment, famishfamine，famish是动词, poverty, etc.. It more or less seems more or less 放在seems后面比较好 a little brutal for the government to supporting不用分词，it is ...for...to do固定搭配 establish establishing an art museum while its people have no place to live in, and it also seems a bit ridiculous for people in hungry to appreciating any artistic works. So it is more urgent for the government to use the funding to solve those more pressing and more impending problems instead of supporting artistic works after weighting the importance of all problems to be solved.
Last but not the least, governmental funding for artists will not always lead to the corollary to the flourish of the arts. With the government endowments, the audiences虽然google上也有这样用的，但是看看mw的解释：audienc: an assembly of listeners or spectators应该是集体名词没有单数形式，audience就是表示复数的意思。不太肯定audiences能不能用，用audience肯定是错不了的 that view or consume arts would not be controlled by the marketplace, thus they have more accesses to various artistical works, which would make arts be more popular to all people. Yet artworks’ popularizing does not mean the flourish of the arts. Artwork's true value and sustainable vitality is embodied by its inherent soul and impressive power, which can arouse people's emotion and inner resonance whenever encounter it. Government funding may improve artists' living standard to some extent, but it could never endow artists' with imagination and creation to produce that kind of great artworks. Consider, Van Gogh, for example, he would not have the immortal works of the painting Sunflowers if he lived in a comfortable life in his period.
这段没看懂@_@，感觉后面的逻辑比较混乱
In conclusion, it is not necessary结论又变成了necessary？注意inappropriate 和 unnecessary是两回事 for the government to support artists, because it may hinder artists full self-expressing, and thus threatens the integrity of the arts. Moreover, there are more of substantial problems, which are hungry for the government financial supporting. Finally, arts' value and flourish lies in not the government funding, but the artists' marvelous creation embodied in their works.
整个文章写的还算可以吧。感觉词汇量挺大的，有些句子也写得不错。另，把别的issue题目用来作为分论点好像也是一种不错的办法 呵呵,我的第一篇写的就是这个,
回忆^
非常PF楼主能想到其他的题目做观点,
楼主什么时候考?/
to apolloxp
首先谢谢！其实我写完后也对我的integrity存在疑问，用中文标着说改，也不知道如何改，放了几天还是贴了出来。我的第一个理由其实想说的是，因为艺术家要忙于为赞助奔波，无暇顾及创作，对于个人的艺术作品的完整性有损害（一般艺术家都有自己的风格吧，体现在他连续的作品中），但是写出来后好像一点都没涉及这一点啊？自己的表达呀~
“把别的issue题目用来作为分论点好像也是一种不错的办法”据说这是有效应对这个大题库的好方法啊，不光不同题目之间例子可以通用，写一篇其实相当于写了好几篇啊，不过我的问题好象在于泛泛地提到有那么一个论点（题目）的存在，论证展开还是不充分
“这段没看懂@_@，” --这儿说的是“政府资助并不必然导致艺术的繁荣”，原因在于：政府资助在一定程度上使得艺术be accessible to more audience (208题)，但是popularity并不代表艺术就flurish了；艺术的价值体现在…，这是艺术家的imagination and creation 才得到的，而政府的资助不能赋予艺术家imagination and creation
不好意思啊，再懂了没？
to imong
thanks!commercial head 商业头脑
且我觉得你的for one thing for another说的是一回事 这一点在给 apolloxp 的回复中大致说到了，表达不充分吧；其实按你那样表达清楚更容易接受
view or consume arts欣赏和消费艺术？其实我也是学来的--pooh艺术百宝箱
包括corollary，marketplace，commercial head也是偶尔发现之学来的
金山词霸上flourish有n.繁荣 的意思啊，我也是后来发现的
这一段论点和你的b1疑似严重重叠。。。 写这一段考虑到的是对题目中 so that这一因果关系的反驳，基于上面对菠萝的解释，还重叠吗？
我现在的问题就是开头/结尾/各个Ts好难写啊，是逻辑组织上欠缺是吧？如何能够提高逻辑组织能力呢？
谢谢imong
关于 “论点”“论据”的问题，让我思索良久，又折回去看了看那个“问题提纲”https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205092 的贴子，这其中的问题值得我细细回味啊~谢谢！ 我感觉你的结构不好，调整一下顺序，逻辑上这样写比较不错
1． 开头：政府资助艺术家不合适
2 政府资助并不必然导致艺术的繁荣 原因是如下两点
3 政府资助危害艺术的完整性（85题）
4． 政府资助艺术家不合适，相比还有更紧迫的问题要解决（190题）
5． 结论 楼上的可以用一下置顶的变色工具 谢谢 六翼小宇 & 感恩之心
一起谢了~
页:
[1]