2025年10月11日雅思大作文题目
Some people think the government should provide funds for performing art training courses, while others believe it is the responsibility of business and students’ families. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
一些人认为政府应该为表演艺术培训课程提供资金，而另一些人则认为这是企业和学生家庭的责任。讨论两种观点并给出你自己的观点。
范文及解析
Introduction
It is true that revival of performing arts—ranging from theatrics and dancing to stand-up comedies—has sparked rising demand for arts training around the globe, with a heated debate over responsibility of funds allocation. Some propose that training funding should be centralized by the government, while others argue that this financial strain should fall to private sectors and students’ families.
解析：
本段译文(translation)：
的确，表演艺术的复兴——从戏剧、舞蹈到单口喜剧——在全球范围内引发了对艺术培训不断增长的需求，并引发了关于资金分配责任的激烈辩论。一些人建议培训资金应该由政府集中，而另一些人则认为这种财政压力应该落在私营部门和学生家庭身上。
Body paragraph 1
A key takeaway from proponents of government relates to arts decommercialization. Without sustained funds, one could imagine possible extinction of certain arts forms, including classical theaters traditional dance and experimental performances, which might hurt social bonds and cultural understanding in the long run. Not only seemingly unprofitable arts could be saved, a new renaissance in artistic innovation could be made possible, as trainees are unshackled from pressure to be commercially lucrative. Another merits of government allocation revolves around broader talent pool. For example, expensive audition fee in renowned arts school has long been described as an elephant in the living room by students from lower-income and middle-class backgrounds; opening the doors to immense talents could translate into more diversity in arts scenes.
解析：
本段译文(translation)：
政府支持者得出的一个关键结论与艺术的去商业化有关。如果没有持续的资金，可以想象某些艺术形式可能会灭绝，包括古典戏剧、传统舞蹈和实验表演，从长远来看，这可能会损害社会纽带和文化理解。不仅看似无利可图的艺术可以得到拯救，而且随着学员从商业利润的压力中解脱出来，艺术创新的新复兴也可能成为可能。政府拨款的另一个优点在于更广泛的人才库。例如，著·名艺术院校昂贵的海选费长期以来一直被低收入和中产阶级背景的学生形容为客厅里的大象；向巨大的人才敞开大门则可以转化为艺术界的广泛多样性。
Body paragraph 2
Benefits of government-supported arts scene fail to stir optimism, however; worries loom over homogenization in style of arts, as edgy and esoteric arts trainers may end up being unfavored. But there is no such diversity conundrum for production companies, record labels or talent agencies. Being directed aligned with demand, those corporations have greater odds of cultivating a pipeline of talents by offering scholarships and sponsorships. In other words, being inherently results-oriented enables funding to flow to institutions that develop the most talented artists. From a perspective of students’ families, they could choose the most tailored training institutions with specific style and intensity, rather than being restricted to a state-approved curriculum. But more importantly, financial investment paves the way for higher commitment and seriousness, leading to better involvement and a greater sense of personal ambition.
解析：
本段译文(translation)：
然而，政府支持的艺术界带来的好处并不乐观。人们担心艺术风格的同质化，因为前卫和深奥的艺术培训师可能最终不受欢迎。但对于制作公司、唱片公司或经纪公司来说，并不存在这样的多元化难题。在与需求保持一致的指导下，这些公司更有可能通过提供奖学金和赞助来培养人才。换句话说，本质上以结果为导向，可以使资金流向培养最有才华的艺术家的机构。从学生家庭的角度来看，他们可以选择最适合自己的培训机构，有特定的风格和强度，而不是局限于国家批准的课程。但更重要的是，金融投资为更高的承诺和严肃性铺平了道路，从而导致更好的参与度和更大的个人抱负。
Conclusion
So far, so clear; it would be ironic if what collective taxpayers have invested significantly could hurt the originality of performing arts. From my perspective, the pivot of government should be complemented by both students and private sectors as regards paying for arts.
解析：
本段译文(translation)：
到此为止，如此清晰；如果纳税人集体投入的巨额资金会损害表演艺术的原创性，那将是具有讽刺意味的。在我看来，在支付艺术费用的问题上，学生和私营部门应该共同补充政府的支点。
