Issue-5
题目：
"Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive, because it is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated."
范文：
The speaker makes a threefold claim: (1) ensuring the survival of large cities and, in turn, that of cultural traditions, is the responsibility of the government; (2) government support is needed for large cities to thrive and provide the right atmosphere for creation of cultural traditions; and (3) large cities are the best places for cultural traditions to be generated and preserved. I strongly disagree with all three claims.
First of all, the government has no place subsidizing anything for the sake of cultural preservation. Certain objectives, such as public health and safety, are essential and the government has a duty to ensure that these services are provided or organized. These financial responsibilities might be heaviest in cities and, if provided for, would certainly aid in creating an atmosphere where citizens could thrive. However, these matters have little or no connection with generating or preserving cultural traditions. Moreover, government cannot possibly play an evenhanded role as cultural patron. Inadequate resources call for restrictions, priorities, and choices. It is not the job of the government to decide which cities or cultural traditions are more deserving, valuable, or needy. If that were the case, the choice would be left in the hands of a few officials whose notions about culture might be misguided or unrepresentative of those of the general populace. Also, legislators are all too likely to make choices in favor of the cultural agendas of their home towns and states, or of lobbyists with the most money and influence.
Secondly, subsidizing cultural traditions is not the responsibility of government. A lack of private funding might justify an exception. However, culture, by which I chiefly mean the fine arts, has always depended primarily on the patronage of private individuals and businesses, and not on the government. The Medicis, for example, were a powerful banking family of Renaissance Italy, who supported artists Michelangelo and Raphael. During the 20th Century the primary source of cultural support were private foundations established by industrial magnates Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller and Getty. And in the future cultural support may come from our new technology and media moguls. In short, philanthropy is alive and well today, and so government need not intervene to ensure that cultural traditions are preserved and promoted.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the speaker suggests that large cities serve as the primary locations for development and preservation of cultural traditions. Actually, a nation's distinct cultural traditions, folk art, crafts, traditional songs, customs and ceremonies thrive in small towns and rural regions. While cities do serve as our centers for art, there is a clear disconnect between the modern art of big-city culture and traditional culture as preserved in rural areas. After all, modern cities are essentially multicultural stew pots. So, by assisting large cities, a government would actually be helping to create a global culture, subsidizing the traditions of other nations' cultures.
In conclusion, a government should not and could not, even if attempted to do so, work to promote or preserve cultural traditions. Cultural traditions are a matter for society to guide. Moreover, if a government were to decide to embark on such an endeavor, it would be prudent to seek rural locations that have gone unchanged as opposed large cities where change is an every day experience.