I bought the GMAT-write packed from the mba.com website.
They gave me a issue to write and, after I uploaded it, their program valued my essay 4. But they didn't provide me any explanations about this score. So I don't know where are my weaknesses, could help me.
P.S. English is my second language and I tried to write the essay in 30 minutes without help of any writing-correction software.
Prompt:
"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."
My essay was:
Does the government have to support, with funds and legislative help, the production of art of some value and avoid any possible limitation? Personally I think that art has an important role in the cultural context of a country, beyond its economic and artistic value.
Art is one of the most important aspect that brings the culture of a country and the tradition of its people through the history. As Italian, for example, I see my country and I cannot imagine what it could be without all the artistic monuments and artifacts produced during the ages. Many of the artists were always being supported by the government or by the principal institutions that ruled the different historical period, like church or sovereigns. Without economic and social help many artists would have moved to other job to survive, and several of the richest of today wouldn’t have been made and our culture and identity will be weaker.
I further think it undeniable that all the artists cannot live with the profit of their own work. In fact some of them died poor and unknown, like Van Gogh, and with only a small wage provided by the government they could have created other artifacts priceless to nowadays.
Those opposed to this proposal have a point when they argue that it could be a waste of money, useful to other initiatives as the creation of new jobs or improvement of welfare. But this is not a either/or situation. The art attracts a lot of tourists whose need new facilities and so it can create new job opportunities. Moreover after some years many artifacts raise of value and the economy of the country will benefit from them.
In the final analysis government should support art because it represents the cultural and historical tradition, that are part of a country and people being.
They gave me a issue to write and, after I uploaded it, their program valued my essay 4. But they didn't provide me any explanations about this score. So I don't know where are my weaknesses, could help me.
P.S. English is my second language and I tried to write the essay in 30 minutes without help of any writing-correction software.
Prompt:
"Clearly, government has a responsibility to support the arts. However, if that support is going to produce anything of value, government must place no restrictions on the art that is produced."
My essay was:
Does the government have to support, with funds and legislative help, the production of art of some value and avoid any possible limitation? Personally I think that art has an important role in the cultural context of a country, beyond its economic and artistic value.
Art is one of the most important aspect that brings the culture of a country and the tradition of its people through the history. As Italian, for example, I see my country and I cannot imagine what it could be without all the artistic monuments and artifacts produced during the ages. Many of the artists were always being supported by the government or by the principal institutions that ruled the different historical period, like church or sovereigns. Without economic and social help many artists would have moved to other job to survive, and several of the richest of today wouldn’t have been made and our culture and identity will be weaker.
I further think it undeniable that all the artists cannot live with the profit of their own work. In fact some of them died poor and unknown, like Van Gogh, and with only a small wage provided by the government they could have created other artifacts priceless to nowadays.
Those opposed to this proposal have a point when they argue that it could be a waste of money, useful to other initiatives as the creation of new jobs or improvement of welfare. But this is not a either/or situation. The art attracts a lot of tourists whose need new facilities and so it can create new job opportunities. Moreover after some years many artifacts raise of value and the economy of the country will benefit from them.
In the final analysis government should support art because it represents the cultural and historical tradition, that are part of a country and people being.
Alberto
