ISSUE190【DIES IN THE FLAMES】BY seiranzcc

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

TOPIC: ISSUE190 - "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."

Although public resource is required to be made good use of mitigating social problems, an advancing and harmonious society is not just about solving troubles. It is appropriate to spare some public resource to support the art, for art is one part of public benefits as well. The proper funding of art won't have negative effect on the solution of social problems like hunger, unemployment and the low ability of workers, and at the same time, abandoning of art support doesn't do much to help improve those awful situations.

The allocation of public resource doesn't mean that all of them is utilized on mitigation of social problems. Including hunger, unemployment and lack of effective working training for people, most social problems are long-term issues and unlikely to be completely solved during the progress of people's society. To support the art when those problems are totally settled means to never fund any art. As a matter of fact, the utilization of public resources covers all the aspects on society improvement, which is not just about solving problems. Any society that focuses too much on social flaws is bound to be too passive to cheer up people to go ahead and be bogged down in the negative sides.

As a matter of fact, public resources are about both settling problems and improving the present conditions, and art, as one big part of people's benefits--although sometimes it might solely involve a small number of people--is indispensable for the advancement of modern society and the improvement of people's life. Theatres, cinemas, galleys or museums are nearly one part of people's life. In spite of the high pace of modern life, people can still find some space for themselves in music, pictures, dramas and films. Some might dispute that it is unfair or even cruel that some people can enjoy all this when there are still someone that is suffering from hunger or serious financial problems. Yet can we say that it is justifiable to make all people ascetic solely because the world is still not perfect? What the best way in which we achieve a good society is to make most people with good life live better and try to help those less fortunate ones get rid of the nadir and hence live better.


Of course, since art could get other type of support from individuals or some organizations, social problems, to some extent, require more public resources and it is completely allowable and appropriate. After all, the society cannot achieve significant development without the mitigation of social problems. And at the same time, the art won't thrive even with the great funding of government in a rampant social environment. What the critical is to find a point to counterbalance between both the issues so that people can live better in a more harmonious society.

In sum, the allocation of public resources must involve two sides including solving the problems and improving life. It is insensible to spare all the resources to focus one some specific problems and let the art alone. To make the society thrive, how to ensure all people--both the fortunate and the unfortunate--to live better.

==================================
自己没改，中间有点乱，可能“social problems”这个提法太泛了不够扣题目？同学们指正啊

winning1030UID: 2538401

Although public resource is required to be made good use of mitigating social problems, an advancing and harmonious society is not just about solving troubles. It is appropriate to spare some public resource to support the art, for art is one part of public benefits as well. The proper funding of art won't have negative effect on the solution of social problems like hunger, unemployment and the low ability of workers, and at the same time, abandoning of art support doesn't do much to help improve those awful situations.(你的文章中没有论证）
The allocation of public resource doesn't mean that all of them is utilized on mitigation of social problems. Including hunger, unemployment and lack of effective working training for people, most social problems are long-term issues and unlikely to be completely solved during the progress of people's society. To support the art when those problems are totally settled means to never fund any art. As a matter of fact, the utilization of public resources covers all the aspects on society improvement, which is not just about solving problems. Any society that focuses too much on social flaws is bound to be too passive to cheer up people to go ahead and be bogged down in the negative sides. （太泛，说来说去就是社会资源不是仅仅来缓解问题的，但是要给出例子，还有哪些是政府要做的）

As a matter of fact, public resources are about both settling problems and improving the present conditions, and art, as one big part of people's benefits--although sometimes it might solely involve a small number of people--is indispensable for the advancement of modern society and the improvement of people's life. Theatres, cinemas, galleys or museums are nearly one part of people's life. In spite of the high pace of modern life, people can still find some space for themselves in music, pictures, dramas and films. Some might dispute that it is unfair or even cruel that some people can enjoy all this when there are still someone that is suffering from hunger or serious financial problems. Yet can we say that it is justifiable to make all people ascetic solely because the world is still not perfect? What the best way in which we achieve a good society is to make most people with good life live better and try to help those less fortunate ones get rid of the nadir and hence live better.


Of course, since art could get other type of support from individuals or some organizations, social problems, to some extent, require more public resources and it is completely allowable and appropriate.（请解释前一句话，给出论证） After all, the society cannot achieve significant development without the mitigation of social problems. And at the same time, the art won't thrive even with the great funding of government in a rampant social environment. What the critical is to find a point to counterbalance between both the issues so that people can live better in a more harmonious society.（这段逻辑比较混乱，而且觉得有点偏。文章问的是该不该用公共资源去弄艺术，你的意思是说要在解决问题和艺术间找平衡点，回避了为什么要用动用公共资源这个点。因为我没有想到要找平衡点，所以我觉得你写也可以，但是得分析了以上问题之后写。）

In sum, the allocation of public resources must involve two sides including solving the problems and improving life. It is insensible to spare all the resources to focus one some specific problems and let the art alone. To make the society thrive, how to ensure all people--both the fortunate and the unfortunate--to live better.

童鞋，我觉得你的文章和我之前的很像。你的长句太多，虽然语法都正确，但是给人感觉很不地道，不是很流畅。我之前就是走进了些长句的死胡同，越长越得意，恨不得一句里套n个从句。后来看别人的文章，觉得适度的长度就好了。eco的文章里长句也不过几个。
觉得你写的比较泛，点是写到了，但没有深入，全都是把一个意思来回换着句式说了一遍。
逻辑层次有待加强。不过可能是你就是想写并列式的吧，我对这个把握不好。
我也是菜鸟一只，有什么地方说得不对包涵吧~

天天添添UID: 2599433

Althoughpublic resource is required to be made good use of mitigating socialproblems, an advancing and harmonious society is not just about solvingtroubles. It is appropriate to spare some public resource to supportthe art, for art is one part of public benefits as well. The properfunding of art won't have negative effect on the solution of socialproblems like hunger, unemployment and the low ability of workers, andat the same time, abandoning of art support doesn't do much to helpimprove those awful situations.这个论点没有论据支撑

Theallocation of public resource doesn't mean that all of them is utilizedon mitigation of social problems. Including hunger, unemployment andlack of effective working training for people, most social problems arelong-term issues and unlikely to be completely solved during theprogress of people's society.
To support the art when those problemsare totally settled means to never fund any art. As a matter of fact,the utilization of public resources covers all the aspects on societyimprovement, which is not just about solving problems.
Any society thatfocuses too much on social flaws is bound to be too passive to cheer uppeople to go ahead and be bogged down in the negative sides. 感觉有点乱

Asa matter of fact, public resources are about both settling problems andimproving the present conditions, and art, as one big part of people'sbenefits--although sometimes it might solely involve a small number ofpeople--is indispensable for the advancement of modern society and theimprovement of people's life. Theatres, cinemas, galleys or museums arenearly one part of people's life. In spite of the high pace of modernlife, people can still find some space for themselves in music,pictures, dramas and films. Some might dispute that it is unfair oreven cruel that some people can enjoy all this when there are stillsomeone that is suffering from hunger or serious financial problems.Yet can we say that it is justifiable to make all people ascetic solelybecause the world is still not perfect? What the best way in which weachieve a good society is to make most people with good life livebetter and try to help those less fortunate ones get rid of the nadirand hence live better.


Ofcourse, since art could get other type of support from individuals orsome organizations, social problems, to some extent, require morepublic resources and it is completely allowable and appropriate. Afterall, the society cannot achieve significant development without themitigation of social problems. And at the same time, the art won'tthrive even with the great funding of government in a rampant socialenvironment. What the critical is to find a point to counterbalancebetween both the issues so that people can live better in a moreharmonious society.

Insum, the allocation of public resources must involve two sidesincluding solving the problems and improving life. It is insensible tospare all the resources to focus one some specific problems and let theart alone. To make the society thrive, how to ensure all people--boththe fortunate and the unfortunate--to live better.

=================================================================
问题：
1 没有例子
2 句子长但不地道。不过我也不知道该怎么改
3 感觉整篇文章都是论点的堆砌，缺少深入的论证
现在想来，这个问题的关键应该是公共资源的授权支配者-政府-应该采取的态度以及为什么该采取这样的态度。

==================================================================
我的文章，更是惨不忍睹啊