issue190 【dies in flames】 task by winnin1030

winning1030UID: 2538401

190.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¡ªand, perhaps, even cruel¡ªwhen one considers all the potential uses of such money.

We can't jump to conclusions just by the surface and emotions, although the statement, which arouses our sympathy, seems to care much for the people who need help the least. Is to support the arts by resorting to public resources really inappropriate or even vicious? Maybe not.


Admittedly, when faced with poverty, governments should spare no effort to eliminate it. For the dying starved people, this is nowhere more cruel than devoting a large sum of money to art, which seems to have nothing to do with meeting their needs to survive. The concerns for the interest of the poor from the author can be completely understood.

However, human have a long way to go before poverty in a society can be totally obviated, or the common prosperity is even just a dream which can only be realized in the ideal world so that we can't start to develop art under the guidance of governments until that day.
It must be pointed out that the population of the poor approaches fourteen hundred million with sixty four hundred million in total in the world. When focusing his attention on the group struggling for subsistence, has the author ignored the rest who need to seek for the spiritual enrichment on the base of enough material conditions? As for them, art plays an indispensable role in their lives. Art provides people with a way to unleash pressure, to explore emotions, to contemplate the nature of life as well as to refine their minds. And it is the spiritual pleasure that the meaning of human lies in. Thus, we have no reason to argue against the use of public resources to support the arts in the majority's position.

In fact, to support art doesn't undermine the interest of the ones living below the poverty line but has a beneficial impact on them. According to a news from Americans for the Arts' Study, $166 billion in economic activity and 5.7 million jobs are generated annually by the nonprofit arts and culture industry. Clearly, the arts offer opportunities to the people in urgent need of work to survive and can improve the welfares of them with the money it created. In a word, the arts are a prime vehicle for job creation and a valued economic distribution mechanism.

More to the point, the financial support from governments actually is very little in public resources; however, its payback proves tempting. Although governments devote certain amount of money to support the arts, other methods, such as donation from the societies, providing tax deduction for individuals or enterprises to encourage auspices as well as welfare lottery, makes up the bulk, which is an increasing trend in the world. It's reported that America's funding for art accounts for less than 5% of the public resources. Yet, its funds, on average, leverage $7 in additional support through local, state, and private donations, for every one dollar in federal support. Fifty million in economic stimulus will leverage $350 million of investment in the nonprofit arts, which will help prevent 14,422 jobs from being lost. This proves that to support the arts is a wise choice with a high rate of return.



Thus, although, on the surface, the utilization of public resources to support the arts doesn’t contribute to the living of the poor and thus is considered as a waste of money in the author's view. As a matter of fact, it brings spiritual quest to people who get rid of poverty and gives people who lead a miserable life economical benefit to meliorate their living conditions. Since the practice works so well at present, why will we wait to carry it out in the uncertain future? In sum, to support art is worthy now.

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

We can't jump to conclusions just by the surface and emotions, although the statement, which arouses our sympathy, seems to care much for the people who need help the least. Is to support the arts by resorting to public resources really inappropriate or even vicious? Maybe not.


Admittedly, when faced with poverty, governments should spare no effort to eliminate it. For the dying starved people, this is nowhere more cruel than devoting a large sum of money to art, which seems to have nothing to do with meeting their needs to survive. The concerns for the interest of the poor from the author can be completely understood.

However, human have a long way to go before poverty in a society can be totally obviated, or the common prosperity is even just a dream which can only be realized in the ideal world so that we can't start to develop art under the guidance of governments until that day.
It must be pointed out that the population of the poor approaches fourteen hundred million with sixty four hundred million in total in the world. When focusing his attention on the group struggling for subsistence, has the author ignored the rest who need to seek for the spiritual enrichment on the base of enough material conditions? As for them, art plays an indispensable role in their lives. Art provides people with a way to unleash pressure, to explore emotions, to contemplate the nature of life as well as to refine their minds. And it is the spiritual pleasure that the meaning of human lies in. Thus, we have no reason to argue against the use of public resources to support the arts in the majority's position.
论点是没有问题的，关键是划线的部分和后面的部分，虽然有内在联系，但是前者重点在贫困是长期问题，难以彻底解决，后者是艺术本身的社会价值，这种层次是不是稍微有点唐突？如果划线部分是用来做主题句，那么逻辑过度要再加一点（如果不是。。那还是要加一个总领的东西好一些）

In fact, to support art doesn't undermine the interest of the ones living below the poverty line but has a beneficial impact on them. According to a news from Americans for the Arts' Study, $166 billion in economic activity and 5.7 million jobs are generated annually by the nonprofit arts and culture industry. Clearly, the arts offer opportunities to the people in urgent need of work to survive and can improve the welfares of them with the money it created. In a word, the arts are a prime vehicle for job creation and a valued economic distribution mechanism.

More to the point, the financial support from governments actually is very little in public resources; however, its payback proves tempting. Although governments devote certain amount of money to support the arts, other methods, such as donation from the societies, providing tax deduction for individuals or enterprises to encourage auspices as well as welfare lottery, makes up the bulk, which is an increasing trend in the world. It's reported that America's funding for art accounts for less than 5% of the public resources. Yet, its funds, on average, leverage $7 in additional support through local, state, and private donations, for every one dollar in federal support. Fifty million in economic stimulus will leverage $350 million of investment in the nonprofit arts, which will help prevent 14,422 jobs from being lost. This proves that to support the arts is a wise choice with a high rate of return.
上面的两段，其实都是一个方面的问题，可以再联系紧密一些。。。不过这样也好了。。个人意见


Thus, although, on the surface, the utilization of public resources to support the arts doesn’t contribute to the living of the poor and thus is considered as a waste of money in the author's view. As a matter of fact, it brings spiritual quest to people who get rid of poverty and gives people who lead a miserable life economical benefit to meliorate their living conditions. Since the practice works so well at present, why will we wait to carry it out in the uncertain future? In sum, to support art is worthy now.

===============
层次很分明，读起来也很顺畅，唯一有那么一点感觉是，像在写ARGUMENT?...
开头两段的写法比较赞啊，范文里见过，而且觉得实用，好
水平很菜，所以都是个人意见
PS：谢谢winning的仔细修改，很受用！

天天添添UID: 2599433

Wecan't jump to conclusions just by the surface and emotions, althoughthe statement, which arouses our sympathy, seems to care much for thepeople who need help the least. Is to support the arts by resorting topublic resources really inappropriate or even vicious? Maybe not.


Admittedly, when faced with poverty,governments should spare no effort to eliminate it. For the dyingstarved people, this is nowhere more cruel than devoting a large sum ofmoney to art, which seems to have nothing to do with meeting theirneeds to survive. The concerns for the interest of the poor from theauthor can be completely understood.(这一段跟第一段意思有点重复，合并更好。先提出那个貌似合理的观点，并用这一段进行支撑，再提出自己的观点)

However, human have a long way to gobefore poverty in a society can be totally obviated, or the commonprosperity is even just a dream which can only be realized in the idealworld so that we can't start to develop art under the guidance ofgovernments until that day.
It must be pointed out that the population of the poor approachesfourteen hundred million with sixty four hundred million in total inthe world. When focusing his attention on the group struggling forsubsistence, has the author ignored the rest who need to seek for thespiritual enrichment on the base of enough material conditions? （这个观点提得好！）As forthem, art plays an indispensable role in their lives. Art providespeople with a way to unleash pressure, to explore emotions, tocontemplate the nature of life as well as to refine their minds. And itis the spiritual pleasure that the meaning of human lies in. Thus, wehave no reason to argue against the use of public resources to supportthe arts in the majority's position.

In fact, to support art doesn'tundermine the interest of the ones living below the poverty line buthas a beneficial impact on them. According to a news from Americans forthe Arts' Study, $166 billion in economic activity and 5.7 million jobsare generated annually by the nonprofit arts and culture industry.Clearly, the arts offeropportunities to the people in urgent need of work to survive and canimprove the welfares of them with the money it created. In a word, thearts are a prime vehicle for job creation and a valued economicdistribution mechanism.

More to the point, the financial supportfrom governments actually is very little in public resources; however,its payback proves tempting. Although governments devote certain amountof money to support the arts, other methods, such as donation from thesocieties, providing tax deduction for individuals or enterprises toencourage auspices as well as welfare lottery, makes up the bulk, whichis an increasing trend in the world. It's reported that America'sfunding for art accounts for less than 5% of the public resources. Yet,its funds, on average, leverage $7 in additional support through local,state, and private donations, for every one dollar in federal support.Fifty million in economic stimulus will leverage $350 million ofinvestment in the nonprofit arts, which will help prevent 14,422 jobsfrom being lost. This proves that to support the arts is a wise choicewith a high rate of return.



Thus, although, on the surface, theutilization of public resources to support the arts doesn’t contributeto the living of the poor and thus is considered as a waste of money inthe author's view. As a matter of fact, it brings spiritual quest topeople who get rid of poverty and gives people who lead a miserablelife economical benefit to meliorate their living conditions. Since thepractice works so well at present, why will we wait to carry it out inthe uncertain future? In sum, to support art is worthy now.
===========================================================

三个观点层层深入，论证art的投资的价值。无论从语言和论证的层次角度，都非常优秀。

比较自己的文章，惭愧啊

天天添添UID: 2599433

怎么格式会变成这样呢？
(这一段跟第一段意思有点重复，合并更好。先提出那个貌似合理的观点，并用这一段进行支撑，再提出自己的观点)