Issue-7.
Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be made available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.
Regarding the arts, one must consider whether or not government subsidy is a wise idea. One should consider whether or not a national endowment for the arts would threaten the integrity of the arts. As far as I am concerned, government funding jeopardizes to artistic integrity. Before jumping in to that discussion, however, we must define what integrity, as it relates to the arts, is. Let us consider a two-fold meaning: diversity and independence.
Government support for the arts is inherently problematic. It breeds passivity in artists and undermines the independence of the creative spirit. It makes artists shift the focus from creativity towards pleasing funding bodies. The importance of individual passion and creativity are undercut by the funding regime. In the Netherlands, for example, the government guaranteed a market for the works of professional artists. If an artist produced work that wouldn’t sell, the government bought the art. This practice was commonly referred to as the "Dutch Treat". The Dutch government wound up with a huge warehouse full of art that hadn’t sold. The program assured that artists could make a living but it also assured the creation of a lot of bad art.
Also, the process of official encouragement of some art is, in an indirect way, official discouragement of others kinds of art. The practice might influence the general artistic direction of a society and may cause the imbalance of the development of the arts. For example, vast investment in the Beijing opera would hurt other local operas. As a result, some kinds of small operas might become extinct.
To further the discussion, official encouragement and indirect discouragement is almost a guarantee because there is always the question of limited resources. What this means is that decisions have to be made about which projects to fund. In cases like these, a standard criterion would have to be created to decide which projects to fund. There is no government panel qualified to evaluate art. In what way could the government ensure the diversity of the arts? There is no easy answer.
Private patronage of the arts is a far better option for the protection of diversity and independence of art than any governmental program could be. Without government direction and intervention, the arts could avoid being byproducts of government criterion and remain freely created what artists want to express. A private patronage system would operate free from any set standards and therefore all art would have an equal chance to be funded. Meanwhile, through free competition, excellent artists would have the freest space to display their creativity.
In conclusion, despite opposing views, I believe that the arts are an important area in our society but should be allowed freedom from any form of official control.
- As far as I am concerned, government funding jeopardizes to artistic integrity. 本句中jeopardize一词的选择非常好，在GRE级别的写作中，优于类似意义的threaten或endanger。Concern一词的用法也很正确，as far as I am concerned的用法显得更加严谨。
- Before jumping in to that discussion, however, we must define what integrity, as it relates to the arts, is. 值得关注的是这一句的语序，however没有用在句首给人一种更自然的感觉；as it relates to the arts作为插入成分，使作者的叙述更加清晰完整，因为它表明文章要说的是哪一种integrity，而且起到了一定的强调作用。
- What this means is that decisions have to be made about which projects to fund. 这句话中既含有主语从句又含有宾语从句。显然，谓语动词is前面由what引导的从句是本句的主语，that引导的从句是本句的宾语。
- Private patronage of the arts is a far better option for the protection of diversity and independence of art than any governmental program could be. 注意这句话中…is far better…的is与句尾could be的对应，than前后比较的两者应该是相同的形式，因为前面被比较的不是一个词而是一个有主有谓的句子，因此than后与之比较的成分也是主谓具备的；用了could be表示一种虚拟，因为这只是讨论一种政府作为扶持者的假设。
作者采用了总分总的结构来组织这篇文章，并且使用了四段三个论点来进行论述。题目提到了两种对立的观点，作者在首段简单叙述了背景，并且表明了自己的立场，即支持第二种观点。为了充分进行论述，作者还将第二种观点分析为二重含义，可见其对此理解比较全面，做到了扣题。接下来的段落，作者用第二段和第三四段各表达一个论点，分别解释了政府扶持对保持艺术独立性和多样性的消极影响。在否定了政府扶持作为保持艺术纯粹性的主体之后，作者又提出能够保持艺术纯粹性的是私人赞助，整个逻辑链条完整了。素材没有选取太多，但都比较能够支持所提论点，令人信服。