Before: Art adds much beauty to the world, yet people still question if it is useful or simply a waste of time. Rhys Southan asked this very same question in attempt to understand the EA’s views. Effective Altruists believe that art is pointless and it provides no direct help to anyone in need. They believe that creating art is a waste of time that could be used saving people who are less fortunate. The EA’s opinion and outlook is far too extreme to support. In the TED talk “How Can Public Art Projects Transform Rough Neighborhoods” by Dre Urhahn has contradicting views. Urhahn believes art is a powerful tool that can transform lives. Looking at these two very different point of views, I believe art is such a useful resource that can be used to enhance the lives of many.

The EA’s have an interesting, yet radical view on helping others and doing good deeds for those who are less fortunate. Their overall intentions are great, but sadly they are living in a fantasy world. For instance, they believe that if people are going to donate any money at all to a charity or organization, they should give at least 10 percent of their salary. While it would be ideal if the majority of the population could spare that much of their paycheck and poverty would soon be put to an end, but this idea just isn’t realistic. Those who have the ability to work for their money also have to supply for themselves and their family. Most often, people don’t have 10 percent of their paycheck to spare. When the EA’s suggest this large amount of money for donations, many people may feel discouraged from helping at all. Most charities ask for spare change or a few dollars and don’t request anything extreme. The higher the donation cost, the less likely people are to donate. People are more willing to give their spare change, rather than a chunk of their paycheck. Although larger amounts of cash may seem to be of more use than a few cents, the small amounts of cash adds up when more people are willing to donate.

After:

Art adds much beauty to the world, yet people still question if it is useful or simply a waste of time. Rhys Southan asked this very same question in an attempt to understand the view of a group called the Effective Altruists. Effective Altruists believe that art is pointless and it provides no direct help to anyone in need. They believe that creating art is a waste of time that could be used saving people who are less fortunate. The EA’s opinion and outlook is far too extreme to support. Dre Urhahn proposed his views in his TED talk “How Can Public Art Projects Transform Rough Neighborhoods” that contradicted with the EA’s. Urhahn believes art is a powerful tool that can transform lives. Looking at these two very different point of views, I believe art is a useful resource that can be used to enhance the lives of many.

The EA’s have an interesting, yet radical view on helping others and doing good deeds for those who are less fortunate. While their overall intentions are great, sadly they are living in a fantasy world. For instance, they believe that if people are going to donate any money at all to a charity or organization, they should give at least 10 percent of their salary. Although it would be ideal if the majority of the population could spare that much of their paycheck and put poverty to an end, this idea just isn’t realistic. Those who have the ability to work for their money also have to supply for themselves and their family. Most often, people don’t have 10 percent of their paycheck to spare. When the EA’s suggest this large amount of money for donations, many people may feel discouraged from helping at all. Most charities ask for spare change or a few dollars and don’t request anything extreme. The higher the donation cost, the less likely people are to donate. People are more willing to give their spare change, rather than a chunk of their paycheck. Although larger amounts of cash may seem to be of more use than a few cents, the small amounts of cash adds up when more people are willing to donate. For example, the Ronald McDonald House strives to help families with children in the hospital; They typically provide food and housing for families and their child while the child is receiving care in a hospital. The donation box kept at McDonald drive thrus state “just 25 cents will give a child a meal and a bed”. On the Ronald McDonald House Charity website it says “If each McDonald’s restaurant collected just 25 cents more per day,
RMHC could provide almost 38,000 more stays for families of sick kids at a Ronald McDonald House”. This organization collects about $50 million. According to this charity, donating small amounts of cash, even your spare change can make a significant impact in someone’s life.”

A section of the Little seagull that inspired some of my changes was the comparing and contrasting section. It overall talked about comparing two contrasting views which I did in both of my paragraphs. It also mentioned the “block method”. I didn’t intentionally try to follow this method, but I believe this is the general organization of my essay. I also tried to incorporate some of the tips on transitions. Throughout my essay, I tried to use transitions such as “although… even though… for example… also… etc.”. I feel that after making these changes, my essay sounds better. The flow and wording improved and it is much easier to follow. Different ideas connect together much better.