Ielts ielts essay sample education as computers are being used more and more in education, there will be soon no role for teachers in the classroom

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all on art. Everybody needs some beauty in their life, but not everyone can afford a Picasso or a piece of music. Governments should provide money for museums or concert halls for everyone. Another point is that art allows people to express themselves and this is good for society, culture and thought. Thirdly, artists can be good for the economy by producing music, films, and attracting tourists.
All in all, governments should prioritize their spending carefully, but they should also allocate some of their budget for art. It is part of their duty to society and to future generations.
251 words
Sample 2 :
Throughout the ages, man has tried to create beauty through painting, music, sculpture and other artistic expression. It seems to be a basic need of humans to surround themselves with art. However some people feel that government money spent on art is wasted, particularly when there are so many other demands on it. This essay will examine the conflict between those who say art is important and those who feel it is a waste of money.
It can be wrong for governments to spend large sums of money on art. Too often, governments spend unwisely. They spend money on art not because a picture is good or a museum is needed, but for political reasons. Cities end up with huge statues or empty expensive buildings that are used only by a few people or the elite. Another point is that the artworks are often chosen to represent social or political rather than artistic ideas. The city gets yet another statue of the leader or an ugly monument to national aspirations. A third point is that governments often respond to fashions, and tastes in art can change very rapidly. Without careful advice an expensive collection of worthless paintings or tasteless productions can be the result.

119

However, it would be wrong to say that governments should not spend any money at all on art. Painters, musicians, and composers cannot survive without financial support. Rich people or large companies do finance art, but then it is often inaccessible to ordinary people. Governments have a duty to make this art available to everyone. However, the most important reason why governments should support the arts is because an appreciation of art is one of the things that makes life worthwhile. Humans do not need just shelter and food. Creative people have always tried to look at things in a new way and to make the world a better place through painting, music, poetry, calligraphy, sculpture, dance, and numerous other forms of expression. While art may not make us immortal, it does make the world a richer place for future generations.
In conclusion, although people do need to be provided with the necessities of life, such as housing and medical care, governments also have a duty to provide their citizens with something more. They should make sure that they pass on beauty, ideas and expression to the next generation and make art available to all instead of being the possession of only the few. I firmly believe that spending money on art is a vital part of a government's responsibility, and I am confident that my country will be able to contribute its share to the richness of the world's art and creativity. (447 words)




143. In the fight against crime, police forces and governments are increasingly using security cameras in public places. Some people are opposed to this, saying that it invades our privacy. What do you think?
Security cameras have become ubiquitous in many countries. Whereas before they appeared only in banks and at high-security areas, they are now entering public places such as malls, streets, stadiums and transport. Many people feel this affects their privacy.
This essay will examine whether the advantages of these cameras outweigh their negative impact.
Surveillance cameras have several benefits. An obvious benefit is that the police can catch criminals in the act, thus reducing crime. This will make the streets safer for ordinary people. A more important point is that criminals, particularly young offenders or petty criminals will be deterred. They will not be tempted to carry out crimes, and thus society will be a lot safer. Cameras are also cost-effective and unobtrusive. Authorities do not need to spend large amounts of money on police.
However, security cameras are far from being a perfect solution. The biggest objection concerns privacy. Many people feel that they should be free to travel or move around a shop, mall, street or country without being photographed or recorded. They feel that being watched constantly is like being in a jail, and that ordinary people are losing their freedom because of these devices. Another point is that although the police say that only criminals have something to fear from the cameras, many people do not trust governments with too much information. Corrupt authorities could use information in the wrong way or twist it to victimize some groups. Thirdly, cameras and computers can make mistakes.
In conclusion, although there are definite advantages to using surveillance devices such as cameras, we need to balance the need for security with respect for the individual's privacy and freedom. If we do not trust the members of society, a situation like George Orwell's "1984" could be the result.
297 words

120

144. Some governments say how many children a family can hare in their country. They may control the number of children someone has through taxes. It is sometimes necessary and right for a government to control the population in this way.