Please grade.

[Mohammed]

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is sometimes argued that whether creative artists should be allowed to be independent on the way they convey their thoughts and feelings on their works or there should always be a state control over them. Personally, I firmly believe that it is vital to have a governmental influence on these works.

First of all, such artists can often have unordinary ideas and these can be provocative in some cases. For instance, movie directors have the power to form an attitude towards a particular subject. To be more specific, Muslims are being presented as a terrorist in some Hollywood films today, while it is completely wrong. Beside of this, these films can cause resentment between countries because of issues in politics being discussed.

Furthermore, these ideas can ruin the youngsters’ psychology to some extent, which might change the direction of their lifestyles. A good example of this can be rock music, particularly the heavy rock. Generally, rock music always contains some hard feelings and tension, which is admired by the majority of the teens. Also, rock music spread the idea of worshipping for the Satan, which is utterly unacceptable in some cultures, especially in the Eastern countries. As such, the younger people are considered as a potential labor force for a country. Thus, protecting the teenagers may, in some ways, mean protecting of economy.

To sum up, for the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, I am convinced that governments should always keep these artists under control in order to prevent any possible threat against the country as well as its population.

[OnlineEnglishTeacher]

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

(unclear first sentence) It is sometimes argued that whether creative artists should be allowed to be independent on the way they convey their thoughts and feelings on their works or there should always be a state control over them. Personally, I firmly believe that it is vital to have a governmental influence on these works.

First of all, such artists can often have unordinary ideas and these can be provocative in some cases. For instance, movie directors have the power to form an attitude towards a particular subject. To be more specific, Muslims are being presented as a terrorist in some Hollywood films today, while it is completely wrong. ("Besides this,") Beside of this, these films can cause resentment between countries because of issues in politics being discussed.

Furthermore, these ideas can ruin the youngsters’ psychology to some extent, which might change the direction of their lifestyles. A good example of this can be rock music, particularly the heavy rock. Generally, rock music always contains some hard feelings and tension, which is admired by the majority of the teens. Also, rock music spread the idea of worshipping (no "for the") for the Satan, which is utterly unacceptable in some cultures, especially in the Eastern countries. As such, the younger people are considered as a potential labor force for a country. Thus, protecting the teenagers may, in some ways, mean protecting ("the economy") of economy.

To sum up, for the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, I am convinced that governments should always keep these artists under control in order to prevent any possible threat against the country as well as its population.

Approximately 6.5

Creative artists should always be given the freedom to express their own ideas (in words, pictures, music or film) in whichever way they wish. There should be no government restrictions on what they do.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

It is sometimes argued that whether creative artists should be allowed to be independent on the way they convey their thoughts and feelings on their works or there should always be a state control over them. Personally, I firmly believe that it is vital to have a governmental influence on these works.

First of all, such artists can often have unordinary ideas and these can be provocative in some cases. For instance, movie directors have the power to form an attitude towards a particular subject. To be more specific, Muslims are being presented as a terrorist in some Hollywood films today, while it is completely wrong. Beside of this, these films can cause resentment between countries because of issues in politics being discussed.

Furthermore, these ideas can ruin the youngsters’ psychology to some extent, which might change the direction of their lifestyles. A good example of this can be rock music, particularly the heavy rock. Generally, rock music always contains some hard feelings and tension, which is admired by the majority of the teens. Also, rock music spread the idea of worshipping for the Satan, which is utterly unacceptable in some cultures, especially in the Eastern countries. As such, the younger people are considered as a potential labor force for a country. Thus, protecting the teenagers may, in some ways, mean protecting of economy.

To sum up, for the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, I am convinced that governments should always keep these artists under control in order to prevent any possible threat against the country as well as its population.

[ceojongseong]

I learned some vocabularies from you and using them. It was really helpful so I hope you would get 7.