Some people think the government should spend more money on public services other than waste money on arts. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Could anyone review my paper from the Coherence & Cohesion, Grammatical Range & Accuracy? Thank you
Nowadays, the government have laid great emphasis on arts by finance investment, which raises a heated debate. The majority of people believe the authorities are supposed to largely subsidize the public services rather than arts. Others, However, argue that the government should give priority to arts. In my observation, it is a necessity to support the public services in urgent.
There is no doubt that more money ought to be spend on public services. It is well acknowledged that public services, definitely, are increasingly relevant to the lives of citizens, including housing, traveling and banking. There is a gap, Nevertheless, between the quality of a number of public services and the expectation of individuals. More specifically, some obvious examples could illustrate it clearly. One of the public services, the spring rush, hardly satisfy the passengers before and after the Spring Festive in terms of tickets, which has been a difficult problem for government to cope with. Another example is concerning the access to and speed of Internet. There are numerous residents in the rural and remote areas who have no accessible Internet and in many regions, urban included, who bear a slow speed of Internet.
Others, however, suggest that the investment on arts by government should not be canceled. The reasons partly lie on that arts, as the component of culture of nations, are indispensable to the nations and people. In addition, arts could fulfill the psychological requirement of the public to a large extent.
In sum, the government's money is essential and necessary to sustain the public services which are in need by most people, though arts is also important to human beings.
Could anyone review my paper from the Coherence & Cohesion, Grammatical Range & Accuracy? Thank you
Nowadays, the government have laid great emphasis on arts by finance investment, which raises a heated debate. The majority of people believe the authorities are supposed to largely subsidize the public services rather than arts. Others, However, argue that the government should give priority to arts. In my observation, it is a necessity to support the public services in urgent.
There is no doubt that more money ought to be spend on public services. It is well acknowledged that public services, definitely, are increasingly relevant to the lives of citizens, including housing, traveling and banking. There is a gap, Nevertheless, between the quality of a number of public services and the expectation of individuals. More specifically, some obvious examples could illustrate it clearly. One of the public services, the spring rush, hardly satisfy the passengers before and after the Spring Festive in terms of tickets, which has been a difficult problem for government to cope with. Another example is concerning the access to and speed of Internet. There are numerous residents in the rural and remote areas who have no accessible Internet and in many regions, urban included, who bear a slow speed of Internet.
Others, however, suggest that the investment on arts by government should not be canceled. The reasons partly lie on that arts, as the component of culture of nations, are indispensable to the nations and people. In addition, arts could fulfill the psychological requirement of the public to a large extent.
In sum, the government's money is essential and necessary to sustain the public services which are in need by most people, though arts is also important to human beings.
