Issue190【0706G－~4而后生~小组】补充作业 by nap

napUID: 196976

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."
WORDS: 569->631          TIME: 0:40:47          DATE: 2007-3-4

According to the view of the author, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate because there are many people are hungry, out of work and lack the basic skill and the resources should be used in these ways. As for me, I disagree with the author's opinion and the public resources should be utilized in such way.

First of all, using public resources to help the poor will delay art supporting for a long time because of endless people who need help. We all know that there are many poor people in the world. There are many factors to cause this situation: maybe it is the ill economic and politics rule that spoil the market and make many people out of work and consequently hungry or the local war such as those in Africa and Middle Asia. The utilization of public resources in arts, however, should not be condemned for this. On the other hand, if we use these resources to help people who are poor in Africa, for example, no one can guarantee that these resources will be appropriately used in that maybe the local government will misuse it or even take graft. Besides we will increasingly discovery that there are more poor people in the world and the helping process is endless. As a result, this is like a black hole that is absorbing a lot of resource. At the same time, the resources that planned to be used in supporting arts disappeared and the people who deserved it may be of vacuity in spirit. Although owning sufficient money, they will be empty in their spirit level and do not know what their aim is or even be addicted in drugs.

Secondly, supporting the art and make the riches to help poor people. The common sense tells us that the endless using of public resource in helping the poor will be a black hole. Using resource in arts, however, can purge the spirit of the people who are not poor and then someone may believe, for instance, that the riches should help the poor which is a common thinking in the United States and thus, they will be likely to do so, which is a power that is tremendous greater than the power of using public resources to do the same thing. In the United States, there are magnates such as Bill Gates who are endowing a great deal of money to help solving the problem of poor, education and other problems. The riches in Latin America, in contract, though are not much less than the formers are not likely to endow their money. The main reason of this is that the riches in Latin America are too pragmatic lacking of believe which is the result of poor arts' purging.

However, at some point public resource should be used in helping the poor. We must admit that in some urgent condition public resource should be used for those who need it. After the tsunami in the South East Asia in the late 1990s, there were a great number of people who were homeless. If we used public resource to support arts, it is funny. In this situation, these resources should be used in making these people survive. After these people all rebuilt there homes and the society was stable, a certain part of public resources should be drawn from this and it is the government that must be devoted in solving the problems of the society.

In sum, the public resources is limit and should not be all used in solving the problem of the society. In addition, properly supporting arts can help solve the society problem. Nonetheless, in some urgent case especially after devastation, public resources should be all used in helping the victims.

不好意思组长的意思理解错了，我补了这个

pengyanjUID: 2169490

第一段最后的观点没有说明白，the public resources should be utilized in such way.前面说你不同意，后面的such way到底指带什么，我怎么读着觉得你such在这里指的是上面说的帮助穷困？
我觉得第二，第三段论证的力度不够
第二段仅仅说帮助穷困是一个无底洞，帮穷就会没钱支持艺术，你没有足够理由说明为什么没钱支持艺术就不行，仅仅在最后一句话顺带说了一下
第三段没有详细论证说明为什么艺术会净化富人的心灵，怎样净化人的心灵。而我没有看出Bill的行为是因为艺术的作用

FYI

潘猫UID: 2238279

"I disagree with the author's opinion and the public resources should be utilized in such way."
我也觉得这句话有点歧义,主要是从不同的地方断句意义有差别,楼主可以稍微修改下.

"supporting the art and make the riches to help poor people".句法有点错,估计是手误,and改成will/may就可以了.

楼主举bill和美国富人的例子时只提到他们帮助穷人,并没有说他们是因为艺术的感化而去帮助穷人的.

"these people all rebuilt there homes"呵呵,their.拼写也要注意啦.

最后赞一下楼主的速度,太厉害了.40分钟这么多字~

潘猫UID: 2238279

"I disagree with the author's opinion and the public resources should be utilized in such way."
我也觉得这句话有点歧义,主要是从不同的地方断句意义有差别,楼主可以稍微修改下.

"supporting the art and make the riches to help poor people".句法有点错,估计是手误,and改成will/may就可以了.

楼主举bill和美国富人的例子时只提到他们帮助穷人,并没有说他们是因为艺术的感化而去帮助穷人的.

"these people all rebuilt there homes"呵呵,their.拼写也要注意啦.

最后赞一下楼主的速度,太厉害了.40分钟这么多字~