Question 18: Some people think the government should spend more money on public services rather than

funds on public services instead of wasting money on arts

Some people believe that the government should invest money in public services instead of wasting money in the arts. In my opinion, I disagree with this point of view and I think that art should receive the same fund as public services

On the one hand, there are a myriad of reasons why the government should spend money on public services. First, public services such as public transportation reduce air pollution and congestion. The main cause of air pollution is exhaust fumes released from personal vehicles such as motorbikes and cars. Compared to cars, public transport is much eco-friendlier since less emissions are produced per passenger. Therefore, by spending money on mass transportation, the air pollution problem can be mitigated quite effectively. Besides, it also cuts down traffic jams because more people riding on buses, trains, and other public systems means there are fewer vehicles on the road to cause traffic. In addition, if the government spends money on other public services like healthcare, the health of our society can improve, thus increasing the life expectancy of our country.

On the other hand, the investment on the art should not be neglected. Firstly, travelers from other countries come to view the ancient structures, and by spending money on preserving artistic past, a country can entice visitors to return. This approach helps the tourism industry develop prosperously. Additionally, arts can improve citizen's spiritual health. That is because watching music performances or pieces of art can reduce stress levels and bring a lot of joy to many people after a stressful working day. Last but not least, the art industry employs a large number of people. When a famous artist organizes a concert or a major artist holds a painting exhibition, hundreds of people are employed to ensure that the event can take place successfully.

In conclusion, I hold the view that the government should allocate money equally to both public services and the arts because of the aforementioned advantages.

To what extent? The measured response is required. You need to frame your response to show a measured or analytical element to your response. I would have framed this, based on your response opinion, as:

I disagree with this opinion to the extent that there are valid reasons for art to recieve equal funding as public services.

Notice how the extent of my disagreement is clearer in this presentation? The measurement exists to show where my disagreement with the statement starts and ends.


Remember that your opinion is scored based on 2 considerations:
- Clarity of your opinion
- Strength of your opinion

Both are not met by your response due to the clear uncertainty of your presentation. Your opinion is not a valid one.

The reasoning instructions do not support the equality of funding opinion that you stated. That is because neither reason presents any commonality in the reasoning that show an equal importance for funding, when done side by side. For example, an equal argument would be:

Funding for the arts is based on the idea of teaching people about beautification. These are done in museums through sculptures and paintings. Sponsoring the artists who create these pieces. Public services also serve to beautify our surroundings. These are done through public landscaping and artistic murals. Therefore, funding for the arts is equivalent to funding public services.

See the commonality and connectivity in the discussion. It is a clear, coherent, and cohesive discussion of a reason why public services and the arts should recieve equal funding. This is the type of reasoning that would earn you a higher scoring consideration in an actual setting.


The requirement is for you to restate the reasons you provided in the earlier paragraphs through a simple and quick restatement. This is not a completely developed concluding summary paragraph.