Writing Feedback / GRE: Government funding for arts necessary or threatens integrity? [3]

funding of arts

PROMPT: Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.

ESSAY :In 1500s, Florence was the epicenter of the renaissance movement in arts. Without the patronization, freedom and the funding, this would not have been possible. On the contrary, if arts becomes the government mouthpiece, then this eventually leads to its downfall. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the influence of govt. funding on arts is related to how much freedom it gets to innovate.

Firstly, We need to ask ourselves a question does arts really need funding? Innovation usually comes at a price and if suitable help is not provided for, then arts can't flourish. But we need to consider another important variable i.e. freedom. Consider for an instance North Korea, a country which is technically a necrocracy, and has strict rules on arts and culture. Even with the govt. funding, nothing remarkable has come out of North Korea because people are not given any choice to innovate and brainstorm. Each artpeice is concerned with Kim dynasty only. Usually when freedom is not provided, integrity of arts gets compromised because the rulers start using arts as their mouth piece. For example, in Islamic countries, people are not allowed to cartoon Prophet Mohammed or caricature any ruling official, this often leads to one-sided views which are not healthy for any population.

However when arts gets funded and is given freedom to innovate, the results are remarkable. While thinking of Renaissance age people such as Leonardo Da Vinci, Michalenagalo etc. A good example in this case, is culminated their imagination into the masterpieces that we have today. Who can't admire the baeuty of St. Peter's Basillica or the mysteroius Mona Lisa? Therefore innovation in arts goes hand in hand with freedom. A nearer example which I can quote is from Indian history. Akbar the Great was a connoisseur of arts. He had peope from various religion, caste and creed in his durbar. He indulged them into debates regarding arts, politics, religion etc. This led to fusion of ideas which can distinctly seen in the forts he built. These forts are the epitome of artist innovation. These things could not have been possible if Akbar had not given people the requisite freedom.

Moreover, as artist such as Vinci became successful, it inspired a legion of creative people to flock to these places and prove their mettle. This is the reason for Florence and Venice to become famous for renaissance arts. As the arts was available to all people, it lead to amalgamation of many ideas leading to distinct varieties of renaissance arts.

Thus the govt. funding of arts can't solely determine whether it will flourish or not. It really depends on the freedom being provided to artist for innovation.

Writing Feedback / GRE: Progress requires discussion of conflicting opinions or not? [NEW]

PROMPT: In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

ESSAY: Human beings are pretty complex characters. Every person is entitled to an opinion. When people with contrasting opinions debate and brainstorm, it leads to refinement of ideas. However, when debate becomes factious and is never ending, it starts hindering progress. Thus I would like to emphasis that, progress requires discussion among people having contrasting opinions but if the debate itself makes the progress ponderous, then it eventually results in no progress at all.

An excellent example where progress has been achieved by discussion of contrasting opinions is democracy in USA. USA is one of the oldest democracies in the world. Democracy is the government of the people, for the people and by the people. So it is natural for people to have conflicting opinions, discuss and come to a consensus. For instance, civil right's movements by blacks was one such event where people, their reprentatives and lawmakers discussed the black people's right to basic civil liberties peacefully and came to a conclusion for the same rights for the blacks as for whites.

However, another democracy from South Asian part of the world i.e. India presents a rather grim scenario. Listening to people's conflicting opinions and not reaching a definite conclusion in appropriate time has led to many bills and laws getting stalled. This resulted in policy paralysis and no progress was made at all in any front. One of the silver linings in such paralytic period was the signing of Nuclear Agreement with USA in 2006. This happened because leader at that point of time took a quick decision considering all opinions. Hence today, India has easy access to nuclear supplies all over the world.

In contrast to India, its neighbour China which has a single party system is better developed economically and socially. In 1970s, Communist party leader Deng Xiapong started liberalizing Chinese economy which led to better economic growth and increase in social indicators. But, as China has only one party, there are no conflicting opinions, hence there is no refinement of ideas and bad ideas can lead to drastic consequences. For example, one child policy led to female abortions, a decrease in sex ratio, human trafficking and no brides for Chinese men. Had this policy been discussed thoroughly before being passed, then such ramifications could have potentially been avoided.

Therefore, progress should happen with discussion of conflicting opinions. But, it should be ensured that the discussion does not lead to chaos and something meaningful comes out of the it in appropriate time period or else, there will be no progress at all.

Writing Feedback / GRE Argument Essay: Should dog adoption program be initiated ? [6]

Hi @vangiespen and others please help me out here. Please give me inputs regarding how essay is written in terms of organisation, examples, explanations etc.

PROMPT : A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program. The program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which should reduce these patients' chance of experiencing continuing heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. As a further benefit, the publicity about the program would encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. And that will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

RESPONSE: Author's suggestion that Sherwood hospital in partnership with Sherwood animal center to institute a dog-adoption program is novel in the sense it creates a win-win situation for both people as well as the animals. But, the premises on which author's recommendation is based are rife with logical fallacies.

Firstly, its important to know the reliability of the study. Author has not provided any more facts upon the nature of the people involved in the study. What if the study just involved heart patients who were pet owners? It would not make sense to extrapolate the result of the heart patients to the healthy people. Also, we are not sure how the study was conducted. Was it a simple survey or an exhaustive medical study of the people? Furthermore, author has not stated the sample size of the study. To strengthen the study, author should have provided sample size, nature of the people involved etc.

In addition to the study, author specifically points that the incidence of heart disease is lower in the the pet owners. "Lower" word is pretty vague in the sense it does not give any idea as to how much lower is the incidence of the heart disease. Maybe, the incidence of heart disease is low just by 1%. In that case, the hassle of having a pet is seriously not worth it.

Moreover, based on the unreliable study,the author claims that as adoption increases, incidence of the heart disease will become low in the general population. This claim is refutable in the way that general population can show an increase in the heart disease even when there is decrease for the pet owners. This happens because pet owners are a subset of general population.

Lastly, we need to ask the question whether people are desirous of adopting dogs. It might happen that Sherwood animal center only has stray dogs which people don't want to adopt. So, starting a program without concern for people's will can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, a proper study should have conducted to know the will and desire of people regarding the adoption program.

Adopting dogs is a noble deed indeed. It would have been an icing on the cake if author had provided enough evidences for the study. To improve the argument, author should provide us with more facts about the sample representation, size , numbers etc of the study. Additionally another study could have been conducted to know the wishes of the people regarding the adoption program. Without these evidences, the study and the author's suggestion seem to be logically baseless.

Writing Feedback / GRE Issue essay: Cooperation or competition, which is best to instill leadership in young minds? [5]

Hi I wrote this issue essay within 30 mins. Please give me input on organisation, clarity and examples considered.

PROMPT:The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.

ESSAY:In an increasing globalized world, leadership has taken an important position in ensuring that any country progresses economically, politically and socially. Cooperation is not the only quality that a leader should possess, innovation and thinking out of box are also one of the most desirable qualities.Healthy competition begets innovation. Hence there should be a balanced approach between competition and cooperation to prepare the leaders for positions in government, industry and other fields.

Cooperation between people who have contrasting opinions leads to refinement of ideas. A leader valuing cooperation leads to progress in his field. For instance, Nelson Mandela, the first president of South Africa, after coming out of prison, engaged both Whites and Blacks in a healthy discussion (regarding democratic rights and principles) which paved way for the success of Rainbow nation as we have today.

While cooperation is important to brainstorm ideas, competition also brings out the best in the people. In the increasingly competitive world, where innovation is the new de facto Darwinian principle for survival, a good leader having an innovative mindset can propel his company and domain to reach great heights. For example, Microsoft and Apple in 1980s were fiercely competitive companies. They were headed by smart and out of the box thinkers namely Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Due to such healthy competition, products released by these companies broke the barriers of innovation, thus advancing the field of information technology as whole.

When both cooperation and competition come together, the combination can give us remarkable results. Consider Steve Jobs of Apple, a leader who urged cooperation among his peers to innovate (because of external competition) has led to Apple being the most valuable company of this era. Therefore its important to instill both cooperative and competitive genes in young leaders, so that society can progress economically, socially and politically in the best way possible.