An IELTS composition, help me to correct it , many thanks!! Many countries spend a lot of money in art. Some people think investment in art is necessary, but others say money is better spent public services and facilities. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. There is a great argument about whether government should invest in arts, especially when the state is suffering from the budget problems. Those who object to public funds for arts believe that money should be used on public facilities. I am of the opinion that government should take citizen’s benefits into consideration and adjust the spending on art or infrastructures. It is important to realize that art is the culture legacy. It means that art is the best way to expresses the kernel of culture and different cultures have various art forms. So, government spends money on art is an efficient way to protect the multiculturalism. For example, the government of Beijing holds kinds of theme exhibitions in park every year to spread colorful cultures. But public facilities should be more invest than art, the others believe, building a library for readers or mending a road is more important than standing some sculpture. They think that holding an international concert by government is an extravagant behavior. I personally think that spiritual needs are as important as material needs when people no longer suffer from hanger and cold. Arts are realize our spiritual needs even our belief. If a person without faith, he would be a zombie. Only with the arts enrich our lives can we feel advantages of material life. To conclude, what the government should do is how to keep balance between investing in art and public facilities. However, in some countries lag behind, I still think people should solve the problem of food and clothing first.

An IELTS composition, help me to correct it , many thanks!! Nowadays, distance-learning programs have gained in popularity, but some people argue that courses can never be taken as good as those by attending a college or university in person. To what extent do you agree or disagree? The advantage of Internet has already changed people’s working methods and lifestyle. A growing number of people are taking distance-learning into consideration who want to enrich themselves at home. Distance-learning is different from traditional education, studying online has many advantage which traditional college cannot go beyond. Contrast with conventional education, distance learning is much more flexible, therefore making it possible for people to shorten the education gap. Distance education is suitable for those who has already in the workforce or being busy for their family such as the new born baby. The other group of students are those who are struggle in some middle-scale cities in China. For instance, there was a huge number of students complain that they cannot get the equal chance to study small languages in some developing cities before Internet was used for online education. But the main disadvantage of studying online is that there are less interactions between teachers and students. Teacher spreads the knowledge by cloud technology, leading to a sense of distance. And the other problem we cannot ignore is the data transfer technology. Apparently, more complex techniques, break down more easily as we know. We cannot do anything unless we are software engineers. Moreover, students are also required to plan their time by themselves, so they should be well-motivated and self-disciplined. Therefore, distance education is not appropriate for those students who cannot study without teacher’s supervision. In conclusion, we should recognize the advantage of distance learning and do not ignore the negative impact of it. I still believe conventional education is not the unique method to study, but it will not be effortless replaced.