issue190，imong的第一篇限时菜作，和原来的水平有差距哦，做好心理准备

imongUID：140258

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—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

本来想些2h的结果稀里哗啦一通乱写45min就完了，绝对的不顾三七二十一。
给你们看看不加修饰的imong是什么概念……自备塑料袋……

I fundamentally agree that the some urgent public issues, such as hunger, unemployment, illiterate and so forth, has the priority in the use of public resource. Nevertheless, art usually does not infringe their share and the author goes too cynical to claim that it is cruel for public resource to support art.

One must concede that the most urgent public issues are always at the first place when authority calculates the allocation of public resource. The stability of society is ensured only when most citizens have enough support so as not to challenge the ruling class. Once the authority is found incapable of bringing effective measures towards these social problems, the unfed, jobless, illiterate will unite to fight for their right and social concern, which will result in riots. Therefore the government should always meet their needs before considering any other group. Also, the production of artistry is valueless in an era of pandemonium for the common masses, as we have seen masterpieces destroyed during wars worldwide. So, it is necessary to ensure the basic living requisite before we have time to go to a gallery.

Yet, one can never go too far to say that the use of public resource for art is cruel only because there is a certain group of people remaining unemployed or so. It is known in capitalism countries, unemployment is a necessary component in the social economy, and a certain unemployment rate is the prerequisite of a prosperous society. Absurd as it may seem, the fact is that a shifting population, which account for 4% to 5% percent of total when idealistic, have to be unoccupied. It doesn’t mean that one must stay home the rest of his/her life once losing job, yet the employed-unemployed cycle is inevitable to guarantee the well being of capitalism economy. In this sense, the art would have never received its aid according to the author’s claim, yet fortunately it is not the case. I believe that as long as the government meets the fundamental needs of the majority, it is reasonable to appropriate public resources for artistry.

Moreover, the interests of art and public issues are not mutually exclusive when considering the use of public resources. The product of artistry may in turn have a positive effect on these issues. We are used to hear that some artist will auction his/her works and the funds will be donated to an orphanage or so. In this way art repays for what it gets. Meanwhile, the government has done their utmost to not to cut budgets of each and it is really rare for them to contradict. The common scene is that both can get their proportion without having to fight against the other. Thus it is unreasonable to one-sidedly deny the art’s demand.

In conclusion, while the basic needs of the society should always be taken at the first place, it does not necessarily require the sacrifice of the needs of art. The question is to what degree shall we give up our aesthetic enjoyment and vice versa.

45min限时菜作 1st trial
我都快要疯了，写得乱七八糟然后自己都不想改了。尤其是最后一句话？！！都不知道自己是怎么想出来的，晕~~~~现在体会到别人的心情了，改别人作文的时候总是说怎么居然会写这么awkward的东西，其实自己更差劲的！！！我原先以为先写得菜一点然后自己改,看来是不行的.自己看自己的作文不够,要多让别人carp carp！
看完了一定要打分哦，不要留有余地（当然也别刻意贬低咯）
(signature:年轻人，看完要打分!!! ？)

feier521UID：109747

I fundamentally agree that the some urgent public issues, such as hunger, unemployment, illiterate and so forth, has(have) the priority in the use of public resource. Nevertheless, art usually does not infringe their share and the author goes too cynical to claim that it is cruel for public resource to support art.

One must concede that the most urgent public issues are always at the first place when authority calculates the allocation of public resource. The stability of society is ensured only when most citizens have enough support so as not to challenge the ruling class. Once the authority is found incapable of bringing effective measures towards these social problems, the unfed, jobless, illiterate will unite to fight for their right(s) and social concern(s), which will result in riots. Therefore the government should always(总是？) meet their needs before considering any other group(指谁？). Also, the production of artistry（这个词合适吗？） is valueless（太绝对了吧） in an era of pandemonium for the common masses, as we have seen masterpieces destroyed during wars worldwide.（乱世中出现的艺术精品也很多啊） So, it is necessary to ensure the basic living requisite before we have time to go to a gallery.

Yet, one can never go too far to say that the use of public resource for art is cruel only because there is a certain group of people remaining unemployed or so. It is known in capitalism countries, unemployment is a necessary component in the social economy, and a certain unemployment rate is the prerequisite of a prosperous society. Absurd as it may seem, the fact is that a shifting population, which account for 4% to 5% percent of total when idealistic, have（has） to be unoccupied. It doesn’t mean that one must stay home the rest of his/her life once losing job（这一句有什么用？）, yet the employed-unemployed cycle is inevitable to guarantee the well being of capitalism economy. In this sense, the art would have never received its aid according to the author’s claim, yet fortunately it is not the case. I believe that as long as the government meets the fundamental needs of the majority, it is reasonable to appropriate public resources for artistry (art). 我觉得论述失业部分多了点。

Moreover, the interests of art and public issues are not mutually exclusive when considering the use of public resources. The product of artistry may in turn have a positive effect on these issues. We are used to hear that some artist(s) will auction （时态不对！过去时）his/her works and the funds will be donated to an orphanage or so. In this way art repays for what it gets. Meanwhile, the government has done their utmost to not to cut budgets of each and it is really rare for them to contradict. The common scene is that both can get their proportion without having to fight against the other. Thus it is unreasonable to one-sidedly deny the art’s demand.

In conclusion, while the basic needs of the society should always be taken at the first place, it does not necessarily require the sacrifice of the needs of art. The question is to what degree shall we （we shall）give up our aesthetic enjoyment and vice versa.

写的不错啊。打死我，45分钟也写不这么好！
2个小时imong的文章是无可挑剔的，只是欣赏，不敢改！所以我就改你45分钟的文章，认为能找一些错误，满足一下自己的虚荣心，结果还是没怎么找到！打击啊… 呵呵

imongUID：140258

晕倒啊，这也叫好，我看满篇胡话倒是真的
尤其是好像position本身就是乱七八糟的
That is to say，我自己都不清楚我在说什么……

feier也别太捧我了，只有被别人多多carp才能很快发现不足的，2h作品也一样
何况还有rainbow MM这样的大牛呢

我的思路是保证质量压缩时间，有的人是恒定时间提高语言
目标都是一个

And，谢谢你的修改哦：）

QQsugarUID：136441

I fundamentally agree that the some urgent public issues, such as hunger, unemployment, illiterate and so forth, has (have) the priority in the use of public resource. Nevertheless, art usually does not infringe their share and the author goes too cynical (here I recommend “opinionated”) to claim that it is cruel for public resource to support art. (My objection is that you have indeed overstated the speaker’s assertion, which has originally referred to specific circumstances when imminent crisis calls for more attention over art)

One must concede that the most urgent public issues should always be placed on the first place when authority calculates the allocation of public resource.( when authority allocate the government financial budget) The stability of society is ensured only when most citizens have enough support(The stability of a society could be acquired only when its most citizens enjoy fundamental living guarantee, otherwise riot or rebellion would possibly occur among those furious people out of the anxious willing for a better life) so as not to challenge the ruling class. Once the authority is found incapable of bringing effective measures towards these social problems, the unfed, jobless, illiterate will unite to fight for their right and social concern, which will result in riots. Therefore the government should always meet their needs before considering any other group. Also, the production of artistry is valueless in an era of pandemonium for the common masses, as we have seen masterpieces destroyed during wars worldwide. So, it is necessary to ensure the basic living requisite before we have time to go to a gallery.( 因为这里说的是政府的职能，那么最好把we have time to go to a gallery 改成Therefore, government should always deem it necessary to ensure that the most fundamental and imminent needs of mass citizens are met before it could reasonably reallocate money to establish, say, a gallery. 我个人认为段末的一句应该简单的概括一下)
Yet, one can never go too far to say that the use of public resource for art is cruel only because there is a certain group of people remaining unemployed or so. It is known in capitalism countries, unemployment is a necessary component in the social economy, and a certain unemployment rate is the prerequisite of a prosperous society. Absurd as it may seem, the fact is that a shifting population, which account for 4% to 5% percent of total when idealistic, have to be unoccupied. It doesn’t mean that one must stay home the rest of his/her life once losing job, yet the employed-unemployed cycle is inevitable to guarantee the well being of capitalism economy. In this sense, the （omit!） art would have never received its aid according to the author’s claim, yet fortunately it is not the case. I believe that as long as the government meets the fundamental needs of the majority, it is reasonable to appropriate public resources for artistry.

Moreover, the interests of art and public issues are not mutually exclusive when considering the use of public resources. The product of artistry may in turn have a positive effect on these issues. We are used to hear that some artist will auction his/her works and the funds will be donated to an orphanage or so. In this way art repays for what it gets. Meanwhile, the government has done their utmost to not to cut budgets of each and it is really rare for them to contradict. The common scene is that both can get their proportion without having to fight against the other. Thus it is unreasonable to one-sidedly (one-sided) deny the art’s demand. (There is still one facet of art function you fail to discuss, that is art could in great degree relieve the sole heart, console the wounded spirit. In this sense, the government support of art, in turn, provide interest of such aids in the form of better mental states of its citizens)

In conclusion, while the basic needs of the society (ambiguous expression. Do you mean to convey such information that the prosperity of art does not belong to one part of basic social needs ?) should always be taken at the first place, it does not necessarily require the sacrifice of the needs of art. The question is to what degree shall we give up our aesthetic enjoyment and vice versa.
   总的来说，还是不错的，语言简洁，有力。但是，你的文章可挖掘的东西还有好多，总觉得中间两段的论述不是充分的developed. 继续加油吧。

happyman2000UID：136936

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—and, perhaps, even cruel—when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

本来想些2h的结果稀里哗啦一通乱写45min就完了，绝对的不顾三七二十一。
给你们看看不加修饰的imong是什么概念……自备塑料袋……

I fundamentally agree that the some urgent public issues, such as hunger, unemployment, illiterate and so forth, has the priority in the use of public resource. Nevertheless, art usually does not infringe their share and the author goes too cynical to claim（学习能力很强啊！哈哈！）that it is cruel for public resource to support art. 就这个题目而言，我觉得你的态度是典型的骑墙！面对如此尖锐的问题，我绝对不同意“中庸之道”！Never forever!

One must concede that the most urgent public issues are always at the first place when authority calculates the allocation of public resource. The stability of society is ensured only when most citizens have enough support so as not to challenge the ruling class.(统治阶级？不要用一些马克思式思维和词汇！) Once the authority is found incapable of bringing effective measures towards these social problems, the unfed, jobless, illiterate will unite to fight for their right and social concern, which will result in riots. Therefore the government should always meet their needs before considering any other group. Also, the production of artistry is valueless in an era of pandemonium for the common masses, as we have seen masterpieces destroyed during wars worldwide. So, it is necessary to ensure the basic living requisite before we have time to go to a gallery.看到你这观点，人家老美会认为，不愧来自共党独裁国家，知道统治人民的艺术啊！不过，语言尚可！

Yet, one can never go too far to say that the use of public resource for art is cruel only because there is a certain group of people remaining unemployed or so.（这是什么理由？还惟一？） It is known in capitalism countries, unemployment is a necessary component in the social economy, and a certain unemployment rate is the prerequisite of a prosperous society.（部分失业和大部分人处于饥饿状态是两回事。） Absurd as it may seem, the fact is that a shifting population, which account for 4% to 5% percent of total when idealistic, have to be unoccupied. It doesn’t mean that one must stay home the rest of his/her life once losing job, yet the employed-unemployed cycle is inevitable to guarantee the well being of capitalism economy.（你从哪儿得来的这些陈腐观点？）In this sense, the art would have never received its aid according to the author’s claim, yet fortunately it is not the case. I believe that as long as the government meets the fundamental needs of the majority, it is reasonable to appropriate public resources for artistry. 说了一些基本上与本题无关的东西，根本不能证明你的主体观点。更严重的是，昏话连篇！

Moreover, the interests of art and public issues are not mutually exclusive when considering the use of public resources. The product of artistry may in turn have a positive effect on these issues（直接说hunger,umemployment）. We are used to hear（hearing）that some artist will auction his/her works and the funds(income) will be donated to an orphanage or so. In this way art repays for what it gets. Meanwhile, the government has done their utmost to not to cut budgets of each and it is really rare for them to contradict. The common scene is that both can get their proportion without having to fight against the other. Thus it is unreasonable to one-sidedly deny the art’s demand.这段还有点道理！

In conclusion, while the basic needs of the society should always be taken at the first place, it does not necessarily require the sacrifice of the needs of art. The question is to what degree shall we give up our aesthetic enjoyment and vice versa.

我觉得语言表达还是很不错的，在45分钟内写成这样，已经很牛了！
内容上问题就很大了。首先你的观点就给人不好的印象。你可以在开头稍稍承认社会应当把大部分资源用于经济发展上，然后集中火力论述你的主要观点：发展艺术仍是必要的。暴动的那一段毫无必要。此外，你的几个主要论点要不站不住脚，要么根本不能支持你的观点。
这种作文如果是考试的话，人家给分是不会太客气的。看在语言尚可的份上，3.5分吧！
要是我，反对的话，我会写：1，艺术具有永恒的价值，它是推动人类进步和文明的重要源泉。2，发展艺术并不完全与解决人民生存问题相矛盾，有时甚至可以促进后者。3，用于支持艺术的公共资源数量很少，对于一个社会而言，多一点少一点不会影响到解决吃饭问题。
支持的话：1，生存权是人权的最重要内容之一。2，只有吃饱饭，才能搞艺术。3，即使政府不投入公共资源，私人也会投入。历史上有几个伟大的艺术家靠政府或公共资源培养或养活的？