柱和表格混合图

　　Australia, Sydney: average salary in different sectors in one country in 2001and 2010.

　　大作文： Government money should support more important things rather than artists. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

　　相关题目：2012年重复出现的题目。

　　Many people think that arts (painting and music) do not directly improve people's life, so government should spend money on other important areas. Do you agree or disagree? 2012.07.28

　　Money for postgraduate research is limited. Therefore some people think financial support from governments should be only provided for scientific research rather than research for less useful subjects. Do you agree or disagree? 2012.09.15

　　关于政府预算的分配问题一直都是高频题目，大家看下表就知道了。通常讨论的对立面都在艺术和科技之间，偶尔在艺术和教育福利之间。

　　2007.03.22gov subsidize arts? V101

　　2009.07.04Gov finance: scientific research Vs less useful

　　2009.11.19New technology VS free education: life quality in developing countries

　　2011.02.17Artist funds: gov VS other sources =2007.03.22

　　2011.06.11Gove money: Public service Vs arts

　　2011.07.16Science and tech Vs arts

　　2011.11.05Gov money for development: science VS other subjects

　　2012.05.26Public health and edu Vs arts

　　2012.07.28Gov money: arts Vs other important areas

　　2012.09.15Scientific research Vs less useful subjects

　　写作思路：

　　第一段：引入话题，艺术是否该获得政府资金支持

　　第二段：科学研究与社会服务当然可以明显地提高人民的生活水平，如科技，教育，医疗。但是这些只能满足人们的物质需求。

　　第三段：政府需要投资艺术，因为：

　　1. 人类有多重的需求，艺术是表达感情和思想的渠道，原始社会就有艺术形式的存在。艺术不活跃，导致思想僵化，科技和经济发展迟滞。高度文明的社会总是伴随着繁荣的文化和艺术

　　2. 艺术和文化有地域特点，是国家团结的一个纽带

　　3. 艺术提供看世界的多重视角，培养人的创造和创新能力

　　第四段：政府应该既投资社会基础服务，也投资艺术。这样才能创造一个健康有生机的社会

　　Due to budget shortfall in many countries, the funding for arts is facing a declining trend. The main reason is that some people partially emphasize the role of science and technology and social services such as medical care and education, but underestimate the intangible contribution of the arts which is difficult toquantify.

　　If we were to judge something by its material value, putting the taxpayers money into social service and science surely looks justifiable as it plays a more direct role in increasing people’s living standard than the arts. For example, education empowers people with knowledge and skills that make capable workers. Improving healthcare system leads to better public health and better quality of life. Environmental technologies such as clean energies help make the earth a better place to live. However, these do not necessarily enhance the happiness of people. That is to say the quality of life does not solely depend on material satisfaction.

　　Humans are emotional beings and need not only bread to eat but also roses to enjoy. Arts existed as early as in prehistory era, which is the best evidence of arts significance even under a preliminary living condition. Humans instinctivelyexpress their thoughts and emotions through painting, music or literature, which is always about creativity and uniqueness. Therefore without thriving arts, the other fields such as science, economy and education would lose inspiration and passion. Looking back at the human history, there was no highly advanced civilisation without the company of prosperous arts and culture. Another reason for government to support arts is that arts can enhance national cohesion due to its unique regional and racial characteristics. Citizen engagement in arts activities creates a strong shared identity and instills pride in a state’s cultural heritage.

　　To conclude, it is the arts that deal with non-material aspects of human life and it is as important as basic social services for humans, but in different ways. To maintain a healthy and robust society, governments should not marginalise the arts.