CHỮA ĐỀ THI THẬT BAND 8.0+ IELTS WRITING TASK 2 NGÀY 14/12/2024

ESSAY INFORMATION:

Written by: IELTS I-Ready, 15/12/2024

Marked by: Ex-BC Examiner

(IELTS Academic – 14/12/2024)

Question: Some people think that the government should provide financial assistance to all kinds of artists including painters, musicians, poets. However, other people think that is a waste of money for providing this assistance. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

ANSWER:

The debate over whether governments should financially support artists, including painters, musicians, and poets, is a contentious one. While some argue that such funding is essential to preserving culture, others believe it is a misuse of public resources that could be better allocated to more pressing societal needs. This essay will discuss both perspectives before presenting my opinion, which aligns with the latter.

Proponents of government financial assistance for artists highlight its role in preserving and promoting culture. Artists often create works that reflect the history, traditions, and values of a society, acting as custodians of cultural heritage. With additional funding, the state can incentivize artists to focus on their work rather than financial survival, leading to the spread of cultural contributions that inspire and educate society about the national cultures.

However, opponents believe that public funds should prioritize essential services like healthcare and education, which have a more direct impact on people’s well-being. They argue that funding art is a luxury, particularly in countries where many citizens still face poverty, inadequate medical care, or lack of access to education. For instance, building hospitals or improving schools addresses critical societal needs, whereas supporting the arts benefits only a smaller segment of the population. 

I believe funding the arts may uplift cultural appreciation to some extent, but it does little to address life-saving emergencies or urgent societal needs. While art provides emotional enrichment and fosters creativity, it does not directly save lives or improve essential living conditions. As a result, limited resources should be channeled into areas that provide more tangible benefits to society as a whole.

In conclusion, both views have merits. In my opinion, while supporting artists can help preserve culture, I believe state funding should be allocated into areas that yield tangible benefits for urgent issues.

(298 words)

Highlight Vocabulary: