Writing Task 2: Art and the city
Topic:
Some people believe that it is the duty of city authorities to provide cultural attractions such as museums and art galleries.
Others believe that this is a waste of money, and that the focus should be on providing an effective infrastructure and efficient services.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to use public budgets effectively is a complicated problem with many arguments. Some argue that city authorities should invest money in cultural attractions such as museums and art galleries. Others believe that it is necessary to focus on practical things such as infrastructure and services. In this essay the issues surrounding using effective public funds effectively will be examined.
Although spending on cultural facilities like museums or art galleries is very expensive, it does is not necessarily mean a waste of money because you can seek profit from them. For example, everyone knows about Italy as the cradle of art. There are a lot of art museums in all of throughout the country which attract millions of tourists every year. Thanks to that income, Italy enjoys a high standard of living. In other words, culture is the way one reason that the world comes to see your country. In addition, cultural heritages helps younger generations understand the history and tradition of their country. It will bring up and promote patriotism. Therefore, I believe that it is important to provide cultural attractions.
On the other hand, raising the living standards is the main purpose of public funds. If citizens live below the poverty line while authorities spend only money only on providing cultural attractions, would that country develop? That is a waste of money. Authorities should focus on providing practical things to improve the state of economoy the standard of living. Moreover, a country with poor infrastructure and bad lacking services cannot be a place which attracts tourists.
In summary, governments should base <---> on the state of the economy to consider spending money for cultural attractions or practical things. I strongly believe that if a country has a balance of cultural attractions and infrastructure, it will become a thriving country.
Ps: I would like to hear your opinion about the topic. :)
You write better essays in English than me, Phuong. The last correction I did: The main subject is missing. "In summary, governtments should base <the use of taxpayer money> on the state of the economy and standard of living to determine spending for cultural attractions or more practical things."
Writing Task 2: Art and the city
Topic:
Some people believe that it is the duty of city authorities to provide cultural attractions such as museums and art galleries.
Others believe that this is a waste of money, and that the focus should be on providing an effective infrastructure and efficient services.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to use public budgets effectively is a complicated problem with many arguments. Some argue that city authorities should invest money in cultural attractions such as museums and art galleries. Others believe that it is necessary to focus on practical things such as infrastructure and services. In this essay the issues surrounding using effective public funds will be examined.
Although spending on cultural facilities like museums or art galleries is are very expensive, it does not mean it is a waste of money because you can seek obtain profit from them. For example, everyone knows about Italy as the cradle of art. There are a lot of art museums in all of the country which attract millions of tourists every year. Thanks to that the income provided by those attractions, Italy enjoys a high standard of living. In other words, culture is the a way that the world to encourage people to comes to see and visit your country. In addition, cultural heritages helps younger generation understand the history and tradition of their country. It will bring them up to be more patriotic and promote patriotism. Therefore, I believe that it is important to provide cultural attractions.
On the other hand, raising the living standards is the main purpose of public funds. If citizens live below the poverty line while authorities spend only money providing cultural attractions, would that country develop? That is a waste of money. Authorities should focus on providing practical things to improve the state of economy. Moreover, a country with poor infrastructure and bad services cannot be a place which attracts tourists.
In summary, governments should base these decisions on the state of their economy to when considering spending money for on either cultural attractions or practical things. I strongly believe that if a country has a balance of cultural attractions and infrastructure, it will become a thriving country.
Ps: I would like to hear your opinion about the topic. :)
//Note* I was unsure about the word seek when talking about money obtained through cultural buildings, I personally think that this is money you receive/obtain rather than consciously look for which I is implied by the use of the word seek.
I think your introduction is well written and clear, your argument is sound, allthough I would argue that you contradict yourself slightly in the third paragraph when you talk about investing money in infastructure to improve the quality of life of citizens which you said in the previous paragraph is done through cultural buildings (perhaps you could say it improves the quality of life more directly). I also think, looking at the question that by expressing your opinion in the third paragraph whilst talking about infastructure you sound biased, rather than expressing both sides of the argument and then expressing your opinion. Overall I think it's well written.
