求狠批，想知道到底自己距离四分水平差多远

KEMBERLYUID：3573994

题目：Nations should suspend government funding for arts when significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.




From the speaker, we can learn that the arts should make way for the starve and the unemployment.  In my point of view, I do agree with what the speaker asserts about the importance of the arts and the pressing problems of the society as the latter is the most fundamental factors for the development and the stable of the nation.  First, the basic mission of a government is that they should make sure that none of their people are hungry and unemployment and in turn they will put their mind in more colorful issues such as he arts.  Then, it tends to be the truth that the private sponsorship is more effective than the government sponsor.  Moreover, the arts would be richer and more prosperous if the people in that country are out the life that they still worry about their next dinner and sleep.  

Primarily, the basic mission of a government is that they should make sure that none of their people are hungry and unemployment and in turn they will put their mind in more colorful issues such as he arts.  Admittedly, the living and the eating is the basic condition that every need to be alive in the world, hence they have the energy to promote the development of the arts.  Several examples involved the attitude to the arts of the England, China and the Congo.  It is the common sense that the development of the arts in England is rather prosperous and lots of elites in that fields are from the England, while we know that the arts of the China is undeveloped and still have a long way to go, and the development of arts in Congo may be nearly zero. This is so because they have the various development in the economy.  So the government should first devote the resource to the economy development of the whole country and then they could be more ready to develop the arts.  

Furthermore, the private sponsorship is more effective than the government sponsor.  It seems that the government sponsor is effective and have a greater impact on the development of the arts when it comes to the large finance of the government.  However, the government sponsor may have a bad influence on the pure development of the arts.  The leaders of the government may choose the subjects as they wish when they distribute the limited finance, which make the fields that the government in favor of are more prosperous and the fields that the government dislike blight.  In the other side, to struggle for the sponsor from the country, some artists may intend to engage in some specific field to cater the government.  So the private are better choice for the benign development of the arts.  Therefore, it is unfitted for the government to sponsor the arts.  

What’s more, the arts would be richer and more prosperous if the people in that country are out the life that they still worry about their next dinner and sleep.  From the discussion above, we know that the living and the eating is the first for the people.  So in other words, when they are rich enough, they will have more energy and more time to care about the development of the arts.  Moreover, richer the country are, more richer people will sponsor the arts by themselves, which is the better way to propel the development of the country.  So when the country are short of money and the people are out of jobs, the more the country should do is to try their best to develop the economy.  

In sum, the first mission of the government is to guarantee the basic living condition for the people, then is the development of the arts, environment, culture and the like.  Meanwhile, the private sponsor can play a more effective role in the development of the arts.  What’s more, the more richer people, the power of the private sponsor will be larger.  Therefore, I have to repeat that I agree with the point of the speaker that the government should suspend government funding for the art when the significant numbers of their citizens are hungry or unemployed.

tesolchinaUID：2191404

楼主需要4分么 要拿4分至少要系统准备3个月
你没有抄写作指引 不知道写的时候有没有按照写作指引来写  

Furthermore, the private sponsorship is more effective than the government sponsor.  It seems that the government sponsor is effective and have a greater impact on the development of the arts when it comes to the large finance of the government.  However, the government sponsor may have a bad influence on the pure development of the arts.  The leaders of the government may choose the subjects as they wish when they distribute the limited finance, which make the fields that the government in favor of are more prosperous and the fields that the government dislike blight.  In the other side, to struggle for the sponsor from the country, some artists may intend to engage in some specific field to cater the government.  So the private are better choice for the benign development of the arts.  Therefore, it is unfitted for the government to sponsor the arts.  

这一段基本和题目所讲的 unemployed和hunger脱节了
可能还是要多列提纲 避免偏题吧 感觉你的语言表达挺好的 但是一旦偏题 就会悲剧了
楼主拿3分-3.5分应该没问题 如果不是文科博士或者要进前10名的大学 就这样吧

wildblossom129UID：3581833

我提一些语法和文章总体的建议吧：
1. 国家前面不要写the. 不能写the England, the Congo, the China. 只有一个England, China, Congo. There's only a few countries that have "the" in front of their names, e.g. The Netherlands.
2. 开头第一句 From the speaker, we can learn that the arts should make way for the starve and the unemployment.  建议换一种说法: A country should prioritize keeping its citizens well fed and employed over funding the arts.
3.  第3节 Furthermore, the private sponsorship is more effective than the government sponsor. 。。。跟你的主题没什么关系。。好像是在解释how art should be funded不是在解释why government should focus on hunger and unemployment.