The arts or health and education ?

Task 2: In many countries, the governments like to spend more money on the arts. Some people agree with this. However, others think government should spend more on health and education.

Discuss both sides and give your opinion.

These days, it is understood that the government is into spending more money on the arts, while others claim that the cabinet should invest more in health and education. In my opinion, both views would have significant benefits for society but I am inclined to the second statement.

On the one hand, some types of art such as music and videos might have an effect on society. For instance, some meaningful music videos from a famous pop star called Michael Jackson contributed to changing people's points of view positively in the 90s. Therefore, the government's support on these types of art in terms of developing content can affect the citizen's awareness significantly. Furthermore, people will have more opportunities to experience different ways of entertaining when the arts are assisted by the state budget.

On the other hand, it would be more necessary for the government to invest in health and education because of society's advantages. Firstly, as the state budget is spent on health such as providing medical supplies, building hospitals... the patients can be served with the best conditions. Hence, a high amount of money spent on health might decrease the risk of surgeries and contribute to the stability of a country. Secondly, the support of the government for education would create environments for students to horn their skills and improve themselves. For example, developing outdoor activities campaigns at schools could help pupils to improve their soft skills which are essential in reality.

In conclusion, it is undeniable that the arts also give people some significant benefits. However, I believe that the importance of health and education is more necessary for the government to spend money on rather than the arts.

The discussion paragraphs are not completely developed. In your writer's opinion, you indicated that you tend to support the second statement better than the first. By saying that, you were then required to justify your response in relation to the second public opinion. The examiner will be looking for the reason/s why you do not support the first statement after you explain the public opinion. What was your counter argument for their support? You did not indicate any. the same thing happened for the side you support. The use of generalized statements, without your ownership and reflection of your own opinion is what created weak and under developed paragraphs in the essay. This type of prompt always requires you to explain the pro of the public insight and the con that you believe dispels that support. Then you have to present 2 pros, public and personal, for the side that you support. When you do not do that, the essay just misses out on receiving a passing score in terms of discussion accuracy, coherence, and cohesiveness. All 3 of which would have resulted in a positive score result for this presentation.

The main problem with this essay is that the ideas are not well developed and your thesis is also not clear. In my opinion, both views would have significant benefits for society but I am inclined to the second statement. .... and reason for that is...... You should mention here why you support second view or you can do that at the end of each Body para.