Writing Feedback / GRE topic Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders [NEW]

leaders must yield to public opinion

Some people believe that in order to be effective, political leaders must yield to public opinion and abandon principle for the sake of compromise. Others believe that the most essential quality of an effective leader is the ability to remain consistently committed to particular principles and objectives.

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.

This topic raises the controversial issue of whether the most effective characteristics of political leader. Does he have to obey public opinions or to seek for specific goals and objectives. Indisputably, Obeying or yielding to public opinion gives this politician more popularity among people.

Nevertheless, It may not going on the long-term goals that he seeks for. Thus, I generally disagree with the opinion that effective political leaders must yield to public opinions and would argue that he should have the ability to remain consistently to particular principles and objectives.

First of all, good and effective leader have clear principle and goals. I would like to point out that having clear goals and objectives make it easy for those leaders to reach. To illustrate let us look at the example of the president of any country, he should have clear goals like providing his people with good health insurance and good education. In this circumstance, obviously that these goals are consistent to principle of making progress to his country. If he succeeded to achieve this, it would be effective. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that political effective leader have to remain consistent with objectives and goals.

Furthermore, political leader who usually yields to public opinion is not good for all situation. Specially look at the area of court, if the judge is obeying and yielding to public opinions, he may have get a wrong judgment of some or particular case. Hence, all evidence above demonstrates that political leaders may yield to public opinions but not in all cases.

Admittedly, yielding to public opinions gives the political leader sense of flexibility and to hear from others. This is true when it comes to general public affairs. In addition to, this affair would be useful to take general decision. However, the above statement stated in this way for yielding to public opinions is a must for political leaders is not supported or related to specific situations.

In conclusion, Although an effective leader may yield to public opinions. But this is not a must and not in all situations. The good effective leader have to be consistent with principles and objectives.

Writing Feedback / The controversial issue of whether the arts have to be governmental funded for flourishing or not [3]

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.

My response:

funds for arts

This topic raises the controversial issue of whether the arts have to be governmental funded for flourishing or not to be threaten by those funds. Indisputably, arts may be oriented in some ways by governments. Nevertheless, without governmental funds to arts may disappear in many fields. Thus, I generally disagree with the opinion that governmental funding of the arts threatens the integrity of arts and would argue that they are very important to ensure the arts can flourish.

First of all, arts have to be supported not only by money but also by good programs to continue and to be available for all people. I would like to point out that this is a big responsibility of the government to supervise these programs. To illustrate let us look at the example of old traditions arts of specific country. Usually like these arts is mark land for some countries. In this circumstance, obviously, It may be disappeared if there is no governmental funding source. So, governmental funding of this arts warrantee the integrity of old and new arts. Consequently, it is pretty obvious that the arts governmental funding is helping to flourish arts.

Furthermore, many arts can be ignored without governmental funding. Specially, when there is no interest from a wide range of people. Some arts may flourish by other source of funding but may be oriented and available for specific people depending on the type of that funding. Personal experience has told me the funded arts are not provided to all people. Hence, all the above evidence demonstrates that governmental funding for arts will not threatens arts.

Admittedly, some specific arts are funded from other sources. This is true when it comes to specific profitable arts. However, the above argument doesn't constitute a sufficient support to claim that governmental funding threatens arts.

In conclusion, although governmental funding may not be enough in some arts but it will not threaten the integrity of arts. It helps the arts to flourish and be available for all people.