ISSUE190 - "As long as people in a society are hungry or out of work or lack the basic skills needed to survive, the use of public resources to support the arts is inappropriate-and, perhaps, even cruel-when one considers all the potential uses of such money."

The speaker asserts that in a society with inadequate resources to meet the basic need of its people, the art should not be supported, even beyond consideration. In my opinion, I agree that the satisfactory of human's basic requirement is always in the first place in any society, especially in a world of relatively poor. Yet, the development of art should not be ignored, since art can bring us something more important than the material.
                                          
Undoubtedly, the most important issue of a world in which most people struggle to survive is to advance economy and enhance the life lever of its people. The very need of a starving person is food and water, not art. And nobody would have the interest to enjoy a classic music concert when he or she is hungry and worried about the future. Compared with fundamentals such as food, water, shelters, we should admit that art is less essential. Concerned with the limited resources of our society, it is appropriate to allocate fewer portions for art, and concentrate on pressing problems such as poverty, unemployment, and so on.

Although human's basic needs should have priority than the art improvement, the importance of art can not be underestimated. What art can afford us is quite different with the material satisfaction. I can explain it from three reasons.

Art can reflect and influence people’s spirit. Art likes a mirror reflecting the deep motion of our minds. Sometimes, we even do not notice the existence of these motions ourselves. When we see "sun flowers", the most famous work of Van Gogh, how can we not be impressed by the beauty of light and the nature? When the sculpture of David is presented in front of us, how can we not appreciate the perfection of human body? These touches which are brought by art to our heart represent people’s love for life and nature.
And they also make people think in mind the true meaning of living.

Art shows and exploits human's imagination and help society development. Space exploitation is a good example. Hundred years ago, flying in the sky was just an imagination existing in art. Many people tried hard to make the imagination in art to practice. Nowadays, airplane is a popular vehicle. Maybe it is not a big say that imagination impels the advancement of the society, while art promotes our imagination.
                                                                                                                  
Art can produce work opportunity and contribute to economic boom. This point seems astonishing however it is actually not a ridiculous one. A case in point is the cartoon of Japan. Nobody would deny that cartoon belongs to art, although it is dissimilar with traditional arts. The prevalence of Japanese cartoon in the world not only brings billions of dollars for Japan’s revenue but also create uncountable work places for Japanese.

To sum up, there are so many things we should pay more attention to than art, involving poverty, war, and so forth. However, it doesn’t mean that the improvement of art can be overlooked, even interrupted, since the merits of art are obvious.

ARGUMENT45 - The following appeared as an editorial in a wildlife journal.

"Arctic deer live on islands in Canada's arctic region. They search for food by moving over ice from island to island during the course of a year. Their habitat is limited to areas warm enough to sustain the plants on which they feed, and cold enough, at least some of the year, for the ice to cover the sea separating the islands, allowing the deer to travel over it. Unfortunately, according to reports from local hunters, the deer populations are declining. Since these reports coincide with recent global warming trends that have caused the sea ice to melt, we can conclude that the decline in arctic deer populations is the result of deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea."

The arguer provides an assertion that the decline of the arctic deer's population is because the deer cannot migrate across the frozen sea.
His conclusion derives from three reasons: local hunters report fewer deer; global warming treads makes the sea ice to melt; the deer have the habituate of moving over ice from island to island. At first glance, the argumentation is quite sound. Yet after comprehensively reflection, there are several flaws in it.

First of all, whether the deer population is declining is quite susceptible. The speaker just provides the local hunters' report to support this statement. However, it is possible that the deer become more alert to hunters. It also might that the deer's activity region is difference from the hunters'. In these cases, the conclusion that the Arctic deer are disappearing is groundless.

Secondly, if the decline of the deer's population is acceptable, we can not asserts this trend results from the influence of global warming.
There are many other factors that can affect the deer's population. For instance, the number of deer hunters might increase.
Or the hunters might slaughter more deer than ever before. The author fails to consider these aspects and exclude their effect. On the other hand, admittedly, global warming makes temperature rise and the sea ice melt in most places of the world. However, it doesn't mean that the habitat of the deer endures the harm of the global warming. It is likely that the temperature of that region is low in recent years while other places have warm weather. In the meantime, the author does not afford us any information about the weather condition of that region in this argument.


Thirdly, if we suppose that the population decline is mainly the affection of global warming, the speaker can not arbitrarily say that because of global warming, deer are unable to migrate. Perhaps that global warming does not lead all the sea ices in that region melt, and the way of the deer’s migration might not be blocked. However, it is probable that the raise of the temperature might make the plants which the deer depend on wither. Without foods, the deer population would surely decrease. In short, the outcome of global warming on Arctic deer should be revalued.

In sum, to strength the conclusion, the author should offer more details about the weather conditions in that region. And he should also do more research on the surviving condition of the Arctic deer.