Writing Feedback / Government budget for art is argued by a few as a waste of money - rightly or wrongly? [3]

IELTS: Importance of Arts

Some people think that government is wasting money on the arts and that this money could be better spent elsewhere.
To what extent do you agree with this view?

Government budget over art is argued by a few as waste of money. At the same time, some advice to redirect the share of the spending to other programs. I totally disagree with this point of view. This essay will prove it by using arguments and evidences.

The advocates of arts have believed that art has always been associated with culture and heritage of a civilization. Different art forms like classical dance, folk dance, classical music, paintings are the epitome of dated events and mythology of a society. Often this builds one's pride for his nation. It is said that Tamil society in India is so proud of its culture that despite being part of a majority Hindi speaking nation, it has kept its identity intact by working towards the support and upliftment of their art forms. Thus, art has always been a binding factor for any ancient culture.

Another reason to support art is the revenue it generates for the economy by means of tourism. Historically, cities with most number of art galleries and monuments with beautiful designs attract most number of travelers. Louvre Museum in Paris as well as the galleries full of surreal art in Vatican is the dream destinations in everyone's "must visit list before you die". Tourists' foot-falls generates jobs in Hotel industries and at the same time augments to a nation's gross domestic product.

After discussing these benefits, we can safely conclude that allocating money for art will actually help generate revenue back to the economy as well as it will be beneficial to a society's identity for the generation to come.

Writing Feedback / IELTS: Supermarket versus local community stores [3]

Due to the development and rapid expansion of supermarkets in some countries many small, local business are unable to compete. Some people think that the closure of local business will bring about the death of local communities. To what extent do you agree?

the coexistence of large and small stores on one market

With the proliferation of supermarkets, it has been hard for single stores and local businesses to keep up to the pace of the market. Some think that this may impact adversely to the local communities; however, I think that despite having a negative impact of burgeoning business of supermarkets, mom-and-pop stores are deemed to survive. Here are my analysis on this.

Although supermarkets are back by corporate giants with best in class business acumen, a lot of time they fail to understand the local household needs. Local businessmen have acquired the knowledge while evolving their society and passing the baton through generations. This has led to building of a tacit understanding between the residents and community shop owners rendering to create an emotional connection and relationship between them. Another reason that will help these businesses survive is their proximity to the house. Supermarkets are huge in size and require large area where it can be built. This impedes them to exist near to a lot of household. Smaller shops will be in a better position when one needs to buy few items under time constraint.

Advocates of the supermarkets on the other hand argues that the freebies and discount offers given by the supermarkets are going to attract a lot of businesses. With the support of investing behemoths, they will keep offering the discounts for a longer period of time gradually killing the smaller players.

To each their own.One might assume that the boom in supermarkets is going to be lethal for the smaller community businesses, these will continue to survive the storm and will always make their place in the market.

Writing Feedback / IELTS 2: Grouping students in regard to their behaviour [4]

Essay: Disruptive school students have a negative influence on others. Students who are noisy and disobedient should be grouped together and taught separately.
Do you agree or disagree with this view ? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from you experience.

classifying students on the basis of their behaviour

My essay for feedback:

Every student in a school are different from the other students in terms of their academics and behaviour. At the same time each of them are equal when it comes to the responsibilities of the school. A lot of school follows the concept of grouping the students as per their marks scored and specially as per their behaviour. I do that agree to this kind of classification at all.

Firstly, each student learn from the other fellow classmate. If we put them with well mannered group, there is a fair chance that there will be an improvement in terms of the ettiquette of the bad ones. I can fairly relate this to my friends back in school with absolute contrasting level of concentration on studies and manners where made to sit on the same desk in the final year. Eventually, both landed in well ranked colleges afte their high school exams. Secondly, it has been observed that the notorious students always perform their activities in group. So, making them sit in one class will only accelerate their tendency of disruption. One always needs a good example to look up to in order to get a direction in life.

In the end, we can say that classifying students on the basis of their behaviour will only plummet their scope of growth in future. At the same time, mixing them well might help in their overall development due to peer pressure. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for the schools to not group them as per their behaviour.