Some people argue that governments should give money to creative people such as artists and musicians. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

40 minutes, 250 words at least.

Answer:

It is often argued that the government ought to fund artists and musicians. I strongly disagree with this statement because there are more pressing concerns such as education and making people aware of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. (Logic flaw: EDUCATION is not a concern. LACK of education is a concern. Similarly, making people aware of benefits is not a concern. Lack of awareness on health issues is a concern.) (Note parallelism in my sentence – lack and unhealthy are adjectives.) pressing concerns such as the lack of education and an unhealthy lifestyle.

Education should take precedence over arts when it comes to funding. The A low literacy rate is one of the crucial concerns, (literacy is not a concern) especially in developing countries, and should be priortise prioritised by the government. (Literacy rate should be prioritised? Seems strange) (and education should be the top priority of a government.) It (What is a fundamental right? Literacy rate? Seems weird.) is a fundamental right of every citizen and the state should make sure that every child has at least secondary level education. This could only be made possible by providing free public education. A higher literacy rate also brings long-term socio-economic benefits for a country. For instance, in 2010 the government of India invested two-thirds of its national budget in the education system and, surprisingly, as the literacy rate rose by 20 percent, the standards of living improved dramatically. (So, should the government provide financial assistance to creative people? The issue is unaddressed. Compare investment in education with investment in creative people.) In contrast, investing in arts does not make a significant dent on poverty and it fails to enrich the lives of citizens. While free education helps millions of people earn livelhood, creative people can not uplift the masses.

Moreover, governments ought to prioritise healthy lifestyle over giving money to artists. The government They (Use a pronoun to refer back to governments) should pump its financial resources into launching awareness campaigns in the media and in schools to make people aware of the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle. Children can be taught in schools about the benefits of making healthy choices and parents will also be influenced by this initiative. (Compare with investments in creative people) Creative people, on the other hand, absorb scarce public money without making any appreciable impact on people’s lifestyle. For example, the government of China launched a public awareness campaign ‘5-a day’. (Did the government divert the funds meant for creative people for this initiative? Develop the arguments with proper context.) It lobbied their citizens to eat five pieces of fruits and vegetables a day and nearly 80 percent of people started a healthier regime. This resulted in obesity-related illnesses, such as heart stroke and diabetes, falling by 50 percent. (For example, the government of China recently diverted funds meant for 1000 painters and musicians for providing health education to students and their parents. This had a positive impact on more than a million citizens.)

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the government should allocate a significant chunk of its annual budget on more serious issues, such as education and public health, instead of funding creative people. This would bring socio-economic benefits for a country and would improve the overall health of people.