作文练习2

yp1978UID: 2336462

Some people say that it is not the right for the government to spend so much money on artistic projects such as art galleries and sculptures.
What is your opinion on the issue?Give reasons for answer.
At present ,there are many controversial public issues,one of them is whether or not the government spend so much money on artistic projects,such as art galleries and sculptures.
Some people argue that artistic activities are in essential private affairs with which the government must not interfere.As a result,the government has no rights to spend money on them.Frankly speaking,I don’t think so.Whereas it is true that art activity is indeed itslef a private affair,its products,which are appreciated by the public,are not.Furthermore,the people who cannot afford the art projects are actually excluded from high quality cultural life,therefore,their civil rights have been affected.Thus,when the government spends money on art projects,it does nothing but  defend civil rights,which is the duty of the government.
Apart from the aforementioned viewpoint,these people also worry about that sbusidiary from the government may be a potential source of injustifiable restrictions.I can’t approve of it,either.Restrictions arise from many ,private investors,who have their own preferrences,can implement injustifiable restrictions,as well.Nevertheless,by appropriate means,such as open and powerful public opinion,this risk can be reduced.
In additon,some people think that market system,and only market system,as it does in other fields,can assure the quality of art projects.However,market system,in my view,also as it does in other fields,will lead to the monopolization of art projects.Government funds can thus free the art projects from this monopolization.What’s more,subsidiaries will facilitate the artists’ work.With subsidiaries,the artists will no longer struggle to earn a living or depend on the rich,so that they can concentrate on art activities.As for the quality,it is the public that makes the final decision.
Finally,these people may mention the financial problem.They point out that there are many vital areas,such as education,health,social welfare,which need public funds,and owing to the limited budget,the government cannot afford expenditures on art projects.Yes,it is undoubtedly true..But what about military and administrative expenditures?Cannot they be slashed?At any rate,spending money on art projects is much better than on projects which can only avail for a handful of rich persons.Besides,art projects are themselves useful,helpful places for education.
So beneficial spending government money on art projects is,I think it is natural for me to be a supporter of it.

[ 本帖最后由 yp1978 于 2007-8-18 11:32 编辑 ]

yp1978UID: 2336462

题目是胡敏的《高分作文》样题3。请指正，谢谢。

[ 本帖最后由 yp1978 于 2007-8-18 11:30 编辑 ]

夜空的彼方UID: 159120

嘿嘿，要去自习了，晚上回来帮你看！

夜空的彼方UID: 159120

Some people say that it is not the right for the government to spend so much money on artistic projects such as art galleries and sculptures.What is your opinion on the issue?Give reasons for answer.

At present ,there are many controversial public issues,one of them is whether or not the government spend so much money on artistic projects,such as art galleries and sculptures.
Some people argue that artistic activities are in essential private affairs with which the government must not interfere.As a result,the government has no rights to spend money on them.Frankly speaking,I don’t think so.Whereas（去掉） it is true that art activity is indeed itslef a private affair,its products,which are appreciated by the public,are not（这句的思路不错！）.Furthermore,the people who cannot afford the art projects are actually excluded from high quality cultural life. Therefore,their civil rights have been affected（civil rights/ affect，总觉得这样的搭配有点不太合适，既然是civil rights，那就用be deprived吧！不过我的个人意见是，不用说的这么严重了，其实上边的一句已经说出了大多数所面临的问题：掏不起钱就享受不到高质量的文化生活，所以这句话去掉也无妨！）.Thus,when the government spends money on art projects,it does nothing but  defend civil rights,which is the duty of the government.

Apart from the a forementioned viewpoint,these people also worry about that sbusidiary（subsidiary，最好能用word查一下拼写错误。） from the government may be a potential source of injustifiable restrictions.I can’t approve of（去掉） it,either.Restrictions arise from many ,private investors,who have their own preferrences,can implement injustifiable restrictions,as well.Nevertheless,by appropriate means,such as open and powerful public opinion,this risk can be reduced.

In additon,some people think that market system,and only market system,（only提前，这句去掉）as it does in other fields,can assure the quality of art projects.However,market system,in my view,also as（as well as） it does in other fields,will lead to the monopolization of art projects.Government funds can thus free the art projects from this monopolization.What’s more,subsidiaries will facilitate the artists’ work.With subsidiaries,the artists will no longer struggle to earn a living or depend on the rich,so that they can concentrate on art activities.As for the quality,it is the public that makes the final decision.

Finally,these people may mention the financial problem.They point out that there are many vital areas,such as education,health,social welfare,which need public funds,and owing to the limited budget,the government cannot afford expenditures on art projects.Yes（去掉，太口语化！）,it is undoubtedly true..But what about military and administrative expenditures?Cannot they be slashed?At any rate,spending money on art projects is much better than on projects which can only avail for a handful of rich persons.Besides,art projects are themselves useful,helpful places for education.
So beneficial spending government money on art projects is,I think it is natural for me to be a supporter of it.

建议：多看看范文，让自己的表达更地道一些，过于口语化的表达还是不要用的好~
优点：立论不错，论据也比较充分！

yp1978UID: 2336462

谢谢指正，今后一定多注意。