issue 10 同主题 请拍

ooajUID: 200299

------题目------
Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.
------正文------
Should governments subsidize major cities? Could those cities be representatives for their cultural traditions? In my view, cities would not be the only place that should be regarded as the greenhouse for national culture, and might not be necessarily offered by government financial support.

Not all nations' cultural traditions are contained and cradled in cities. Admittedly some countries like Swiss, Singapore, boast their typical national culture with major cities. These countries have something in common: small territories, mono-nationality, and modernized society. A glance at the cosmopolis would inform you the essence of their own cultural traditions. On the contrary, that does not make any sense facing large countries, such as China, the U.S., and Russia, for their national cultures are completely complicated and totally different from the west to the east, from the urban to the rural area. For instance, in China, several big cities along the coastline like Shanghai, Hong Kong, enjoy the cross-cultural combination of both the Chinese lunar calendar traditions and the occidental Catholic hallmarks comparing with the landlocked countryside in southwest China where the farmers still live in a lifestyle of their forefathers. As a result, no evidence has shown that cities could represent the nation's cultural traditions entirely and completely. Furthermore empirical evidences indicate that cultures are not primarily formulated in cities. Indeed culture had been generated much earlier than cities came out. Even today, cities could not be assumed to form most of the national cultures. In other words, the speaker overestimates the cities importance in cultural preservation and production.

Moreover, it is unnecessary for governments to pay excess attention on cultural preservation. Culture, as a form of identity, should be chosen by citizens themselves. Accordingly as the representative of people, governments ought to abide with the choice of their own citizens. The policies might sometimes be relatively different depending upon respective social communities, which vividly show as regional differences. What is more, it is not credible that to offer financial support would necessarily make major cities concerning preserve their own national culture. Actually, the financial subsidies should be issued on the basis of immediate and urgent need of the development some cities. For example, Russia wants to impetus its depressive economy with the take off of Siberia, so Kremlin would be likely willing to give preemptive development priority to some Far East cities with national foundations.

In addition, that would be unfair to give financial aids to big cities by national government without a balance among different regions. What is worse, the traditional culture in the rural areas, which could be basically identified the national character, might not be able to properly preserved, and there might be some kind of cultural extinction which may not be due to actively choosing but be the result of money vacancy.

To sum up, cities are not always the cradle and model of national traditions. If governments want to preserve its popular cultural traditions, it would be better to take a balance among the rural and urban areas according to specific desires and subjective conditions as well.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=259769
都是同主题
互改一下吧

deserteagleUID: 201968

Should governments subsidize major cities? Could those cities be representatives for their cultural traditions? In my view, cities would not be the only placeplaces that should be regarded as the greenhouse for national culture, and might not be necessarily offered by government financial support.

Not all nations' cultural traditions are contained and cradled in cities. Admittedly some countries like Swiss, Singapore, boast their typical national culture with major cities. These countries have something in common: small territories, mono-nationality, and modernized society. A glance at the cosmopolis would inform you the essence of their own cultural traditions. On the contrary, that does not make any sense facing large countries, such as China, the U.S., and Russia, for their national cultures are completely complicated and totally different from the west to the east, from the urban to the rural area. For instance, in China, several big cities along the coastline like Shanghai, Hong Kong, enjoy the cross-cultural combination of both the Chinese lunar calendar traditions and the occidental Catholic hallmarks comparing with the landlocked countryside in southwest China where the farmers still live in a lifestyle of their forefathers. As a result, no evidence has shown that cities could represent the nation's cultural traditions entirely and completely. 感觉primarily和entirely程度上还是有不同吧
Furthermore empirical evidences indicate that cultures are not primarily formulated in cities. Indeed culture had been generated much earlier than cities came out. Even today, cities could not be assumed to form most of the national cultures. In other words, the speaker overestimates the cities importance in cultural preservation and production.

Moreover, it is unnecessary for governments to pay excess attention on cultural preservation. Culture, as a form of identity, should be chosen by citizens themselves得出这个结论感觉有点跑题了,题目的意,题目讨论的主要是在保护和传承文化,和城市繁荣的关系. Accordingly as the representative of people, governments ought to abide with the choice of their own citizens. The policies might sometimes be relatively different depending upon respective social communities, which vividly show as regional differences. What is more, it is not credible that to offer financial support would necessarily make major cities concerning preserve their own national culture. Actually, the financial subsidies should be issued on the basis of immediate and urgent need of the development some cities. For example, Russia wants to impetus its depressive economy with the take off of Siberia, so Kremlin would be likely willing to give preemptive development priority to some Far East cities with national foundations.

In addition, that would be unfair to give financial aids to big cities by national government without a balance among different regions. What is worse, the traditional culture in the rural areas, which could be basically identified the national character, might not be able to properly preserved, and there might be some kind of cultural extinction which may not be due to actively choosing but be the result of money vacancy.感觉这个论点不错,若加个例子论证一下,肯定效果更好了


To sum up, cities are not always the cradle and model of national traditions. If governments want to preserve its popular cultural traditions, it would be better to take a balance among the rural and urban areas according to specific desires and subjective conditions as well.
感觉语法错误较少,对文化的区域性论证比较到位,但对于文化和城市的thrive的关系论证较少

ooajUID: 200299

谢谢楼上的，说的有道理nod。。。