It is currently 14 Dec 2018, 02:19
My Tests

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Feb 2015
Posts: 107
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 6

Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in [#permalink] New post 03 May 2015, 03:49
1
This post received
KUDOS
Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.

The speaker contends that the arts should be funded as much as the military. I concede that the arts have a potential to reform any country economy. Beyond this concession I find the speaker's assertion indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint. In fact, following the speaker's advice would actually make totally generalization about the comparison.

First, the main reason for my fundamental disagreement with the speaker's assertion is that the military of any nation is one of the most prevail need in current scenario, because each nation want to conquer other, and the reason behind conquering might be justifiable or unjustifiable. For instance, now's days all country are fighting against terrorism, for this fight we need a highly trained military forces who can combat with these terrorists, this is only done by supporting more and more to the country military instead of the arts.

Second, the chief reason for my disagreement is lies in a empirical evidence that when any country legislators assemble in their assembly, they mainly focus on the civilian security instead of any other things. For instance, one of the most powerful of the world the USA has been spending millions of dollars on their country civilian safety, not only the USA, but also other powerful countries are also spending millions of dollars for this work.

Finally, some people argue that the arts is weapon that can generate numbers of employment in any country where it will be supported by the government, but in reality the artists works are not dependable on the government money. Moreover, the arts can grow independently, because the roots of the arts lie deep in culture instead of any kinds of supports.

In sum, I concur that the government should mainly focus on one of the most paramount need that is the military of their nation, because for stability or pace can grow more creative arts and artists. Furthermore, the arts can sustain individually without any kind of assistance, so therefore the government primarily should focus on the military needs.
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2014
Posts: 4749
GRE 1: Q167 V156
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 1659 [1] , given: 396

CAT Tests
Re: First issue essay, pls evaluate ........... [#permalink] New post 03 May 2015, 05:09
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Another response:


Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military.

The issue here has raised a number of questions in countries around the world. It is prevalent in today's world and has raised serious doubts. Arts or military might? Which of the two defines a nation. A lot of thought has to be put into this issue, as both play a vital role in the way the society progresses.

Arts are the defining characteristics of a nation. They are symbolic of each country, they provide vital information about the existing traditions in a society. Art forms such as dance, literature, music , paintings are all an indispensable part of the society. Albeit, military power does play a vital role in securing a nation against foreign and internal threats, simply providing majority of the nations funding for military purposes is unjustified.

Art forms also share equal importance. All great nations have been recognized by their artistic works. Beethoven's symphony, Leonardo Da Vinci's puzzling paintings, the delicate Indian dance traditions have left one and all awe struck. Arts mainly thrive on the appreciation that is given by the public. An artist does not need millions of dollars of funding for him to put up a beautiful work of art. Money is not a motivational factor for arts, it is respect and appreciation that motivates an artist to carry out his work with sheer determination.

Military advancements require billions of dollars of investment each year from the government, however it would be wrong to say that art forms require an equivalent amount of funding. But completely ignoring arts all together might lead to a sharp decline in artistic endeavors. Some amount of promotional funding, and security in part of the government has to be provided. Museums, exhibitions and other promotional events have to be initiated by the government to ensure that the artists are motivated to do what they do best.

This does not mean the government invest million dollars in arts, but some part of the government funding should be allotted for arts in case a day arises when one needs to revive an art form which has lost all its value and which was once the essence of a particular tradition. Military advancements are of great importance in today's world and nation's need to invest a lot of money to ensure the safety of its citizens.

Thus although no large scale funding is required for art forms, but the government should keep aside some part of the tax payer's money for arts, so that people can continue to enjoy the true essence of their homeland and culture, which inturn would motivate various artists to continue their work.
_________________

Sandy
If you found this post useful, please let me know by pressing the Kudos Button

Try our free Online GRE Test

Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 May 2015
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: First issue essay, pls evaluate ........... [#permalink] New post 03 Jun 2015, 00:54
hi,
your essay is good, clear and precise. if you increase the length of the essay, you might get more score. try to elaborate the examples a little more as i read in the sample essays which scored 5 and 6. one more thing which is important is the flow between the paragraphs, use furthermore, also, as said above etc. and also you have written finally in the second last para and in the last para "in sum". the e-rater may cut your score for this. if you are writting your conclusion, in that para only write such words like in sum. u can also refer the magoosh for this
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2016
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in [#permalink] New post 20 Aug 2016, 01:13
It is definitely true that investing in arts would bring more glory to the particular country but it should not to be forgot that being safe should be the primary concern.

This world has already seen two wars and after that no country wouldn't be taking risk of not developing their military or not investing in defense sector. It is kind of an anecdote but true that to protect artist, they would be seeing military help.

Investing more in arts could have been true in a sense when no country is investing in military anymore and all the nation are at same level. But that is not the case in present and never that would be in near future. For example only 8 countries has got nuclear weapons in the entire world now unless almost all capable countries couldn't develop their own nuclear weapon they won't be happy. But the time when this equilibrium should arrive, countries like US would start investing more in other type of weapon which are technologically great. And again every country would start racing for that. So being in an equilibrium state in military is a myth and every country would have to invest in this.

On the contrary investing in military is tougher than investing in arts in sense of financial condition. Arts doesn't require that much of financial support as much as military do. Military requires a lot of money to be invested in buying the weapons, doing research for developing own weapons but arts doesn't require that much of money to be invested. So there is not point of investing as much in arts as military. That implies if any country is capable enough to invest in military successfully that could easily fund to promote arts of the country.

What I believe in true sense is military requires to be funded great by the government but arts doesn't require that instead arts should be promoted in every part of the society. It might require a little fund to promote these type of things but again that would be very small as compared to military fund. After when their paintings, music etc become famous around the world, the small amount of money which was invested, they would be bringing that money to India anyway.

At last a government's primary concern should be of investing money in the military but on the same page a small amount (1 or 2% of military) of fund should be given to arts to promote that.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in [#permalink] New post 23 Jun 2018, 04:49
Can someone please give an opinion about my essay? Thank you :)


It is hard to agree about what areas and sectors should governments invest their resources on. Many would say that is important to invest in research in this era of technology. Others might say that the first priority of the governments should be to provide good healthcare services. The author of the text claims that the government should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military. I would disagree with the recommendation made by the author. Although it is true that this kind of dilemma is always dependent on the social and economical environment, investing in military must always be a top priority over the years.

As I said before, when claiming if the governments should invest their resources on arts or on military, one should always bear in mind the specific social and economical circumstances of that specific time period. What was valid and true yesterday might not be today. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a time when investing in military was not a top priority. Whether it was because we were at war or because the danger of being at war was great, most governments around the world have always investing much of their resources in military.

If we consider the time we live in, we probably would agree that military is a top priority. The dangers posed by terrorism are enormous, and countries must protect their citizens. In addition, global warming might become also a national security issue, with countries fighting for the possession of vital resources, such as water. Is it investing in art as important as investing in military? I do not agree with it. To tackle the most important challenges that we face today and will face in future, countries will need to maintain or develop a good national security system.

It is absolutely true that arts have the power to shape and define the culture and the society of a country. When watching the movie "The Monuments Men", one will be overwhelmed by how important it was to avoid the destruction of certain artistic masterpieces, for the revival of the countries after the second World War. Nevertheless, arts is something that can be run and supported more easily by private agents. Arts can be a very profitable business, and therefore more people will be willing to invest in it. On the other hand, not many people will be interested in investing in military as the financial returns are small.

To sum up, although arts can have a very strong impact on society, I do not agree with the statement that governments should invest as much in arts as they do in the military. Firstly, countries will require a good military in order to tackle the most proeminent challenges that they face. Secondly, as few people are willing to invest in military, as it is not a very profitable business, the governments should step up and provide national security services.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Apr 2018
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in [#permalink] New post 28 Jun 2018, 22:25
Art is a cultural heritage of a country, that must be protected and encouraged in order to revere our past generations and to sustain it for future generations to cherish the cultural uniqueness. Art comes in many forms dance,monuments, paintings,music as well as language.Whereas Military is entirely different responsibility of a country,infact sustenance of art is also ensured by military.So author's take to funding art as military doesn't make a cogent case,rather this statement is rife with flaws and bad comparison.

One of the major disconnect the author makes here is comparison of funds to military and arts.Funding of military is large and mostly capital machinery(guns,ship and planes) and salaries to servicemen.Typical budget of military is several hundred billion dollars where as Funding of arts cannot be equated to military's.Moreover,Why huge funding is required for Arts? Restoration activities,programs to encourage classical dance and music , and languages only requires small fraction of funding

Also,The funding of arts and military is country specific and highly conditional.So , we cannot generalize this to every country.Imagine a developing country fraught with insurgency, in this case with limited resouces the need of the hour would be to safeguard the nation from external ans well as internal threats.

Having said that, I am not suggesting that Art should not be funded, its our cultural heritage and must be looked after.Sustenance of arts in any country doesn't merely needs funds from government but encouragement and support programs where new generation is inspired to learn arts. In fact we have numerous artists who made it big on all arenas of arts be it painting,classical music,theaters , classical dances etc.Therefore Government should formulate dedicated institution to monitor and inspire the growth of arts in the country apart from merely funding it.
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 5166
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1033 [0], given: 4655

CAT Tests
Re: Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in [#permalink] New post 04 Jul 2018, 01:15
Expert's post
francisconobre wrote:
Can someone please give an opinion about my essay? Thank you :)


It is hard to agree about what areas and sectors should governments invest their resources on. Many would say that is important to invest in research in this era of technology. Others might say that the first priority of the governments should be to provide good healthcare services. The author of the text claims that the government should invest as much in the arts as they do in the military. I would disagree with the recommendation made by the author. Although it is true that this kind of dilemma is always dependent on the social and economical environment, investing in military must always be a top priority over the years.

As I said before, when claiming if the governments should invest their resources on arts or on military, one should always bear in mind the specific social and economical circumstances of that specific time period. What was valid and true yesterday might not be today. Having said that, it is hard to imagine a time when investing in military was not a top priority. Whether it was because we were at war or because the danger of being at war was great, most governments around the world have always investing much of their resources in military.

If we consider the time we live in, we probably would agree that military is a top priority. The dangers posed by terrorism are enormous, and countries must protect their citizens. In addition, global warming might become also a national security issue, with countries fighting for the possession of vital resources, such as water. Is it investing in art as important as investing in military? I do not agree with it. To tackle the most important challenges that we face today and will face in future, countries will need to maintain or develop a good national security system.

It is absolutely true that arts have the power to shape and define the culture and the society of a country. When watching the movie "The Monuments Men", one will be overwhelmed by how important it was to avoid the destruction of certain artistic masterpieces, for the revival of the countries after the second World War. Nevertheless, arts is something that can be run and supported more easily by private agents. Arts can be a very profitable business, and therefore more people will be willing to invest in it. On the other hand, not many people will be interested in investing in military as the financial returns are small.

To sum up, although arts can have a very strong impact on society, I do not agree with the statement that governments should invest as much in arts as they do in the military. Firstly, countries will require a good military in order to tackle the most proeminent challenges that they face. Secondly, as few people are willing to invest in military, as it is not a very profitable business, the governments should step up and provide national security services.


It is good however not fully address the issue. https://greprepclub.com/forum/greprepcl ... -3426.html

See here for strategy
_________________

Get the 2 FREE GREPrepclub Tests

Re: Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in   [#permalink] 04 Jul 2018, 01:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Governments should invest as much in the arts as they do in

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GRE Prep Club Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GRE Prep Club Rules| Contact

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group

Kindly note that the GRE® test is a registered trademark of the Educational Testing Service®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by ETS®.