![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
寫作範例:argument/opinion | |
2024/07/16 | |
![]() |
|
※ 本文節錄自 貝塔語測《 論證型英文寫作速成教戰 》 作者:Quentin Brand 寫作題目 The government should not support the arts. The money will be better spent on other things. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 〈小叮嚀〉請留意兩個正文段落之主題句,你能否看出這兩句是如何最為概括,以及段落中的其他各句是如何發展或對主題句提供具體的細節?
Many people believe that art is something which only a few people are interested in, and that because of this the government should not spend public money on it. However, while this may be true to some extent, nonetheless, the arts play a significant role in public life. I firmly believe that the government should support the arts. There are two main reasons why I think so. First, the arts provide employment to lots of people who have highly specialized skills. Actors, dancers, musicians and theatre and film technicians, for example, often have highly developed skills which take years of training to develop. However, without state support, the institutions where such people train will not survive, and the people who work in those institutions will also be out of work. Also, opera houses and theatres which receive state funding employ many people, not only in the big cities, but also when they tour outside the cities. Second, some people think that the government should only spend money on things which benefit the whole of society, such as education, health and defense. Although the benefits of spending on the arts may be difficult to measure, that doesn’t mean that there are no tangible benefits for the nation as a whole. Take my country (UK) for example. The theatre industry in London is world famous and millions of tourists go to see a musical or visit museums when they come to London. This kind of tourist attraction brings in revenue for the state. Without initial government funding, many of the sights the tourists come to see would never have been created. To summarize, it is my opinion that the arts are important for everyone, and the benefits of the state supporting them far outweigh the costs. 政府不該金援藝術。經費投注在別的事物上會更好。你是在什麼程度上贊同或不贊同? 很多人相信,藝術是只有少數人才感興趣的東西,所以政府不該投注公共經費在此。然而,儘管這在某種程度上或許為真,但藝術在公共生活上發揮了重要作用。我堅信,政府應該要金援藝術。我為什麼會這麼想,主要的理由有二。 一,藝術為許多具備高度專門技能的人提供了就業。例如演員、舞者、樂手和影劇技術人員常具備了高度發展的技能,要花費多年的訓練才能養成。不過在少了公家的金援下,訓練這類人員的機構就會無法存續,在這些機構裡工作的人也會失業。另外,獲得公家資助的歌劇院和劇場會雇用很多人,不僅是在大城市裡,在城市以外的地方巡迴時也是如此。 二,有些人認為,政府只該把經費投注在對社會整體有好處的事物上,諸如教育、衛生和國防。雖然投注在藝術上的好處或許難以衡量,但這並不意謂著對整個國家沒有實質的好處。以我國(英國)為例,倫敦的劇場業是舉世聞名,成千上百萬的觀光客在到訪倫敦時會去看歌舞劇或是逛博物館。這種觀光賣點便會為公家帶來營收。少了最初的政府資助,觀光客到訪所看到的很多景點就絕不會被創造出來。 總之,我認為藝術對每個人都很重要,由公家金援藝術的好處遠遠超過其成本。 |
|
![]() |
|
文章分類:英文寫作不卡關 | |
![]() |
|
上一篇:如何舉出具體的例子 | |
![]() |
|
下一篇:如何寫原因 | |