fbpx

The government should spend more money on medical research to protect cicitzen’s health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?

The government should spend more money on medical research to protect cicitzen’s health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?

With the rapid advancement of the country, people hold divergent opinions on healthcare and environment that the government’s budget should value the citizen’s health rather than the surrounding environment. Although both medical research and pollution treatment affect greatly on humans, I partly disagree with the point of priority to cure than prevent
First and foremost, the environment should be prioritized due to the spread of diseases. Pollution, such as air and water pollution, can have detrimental effects on human health. Poor air quality contributes to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular issues, and other health problems. Water pollution can lead to waterborne diseases. By focusing on reducing pollution, governments can protect the health of their citizens and prevent various illnesses.
Additionally, the expenditure on preventing the causes is much more economic than undergoing numerous medical treatments. Had it not been for targeting the root causes of health issues through pollution reduction and improved housing conditions, governments would not have adopted a preventive approach to healthcare. Preventing illness and disease is more cost-effective and beneficial in the long run compared to treating them once they occur.
However, it is important to note that improving environmental conditions and resolving housing problems alone may not completely eliminate all health risks. A comprehensive approach to public health should also include access to healthcare services, health education, and policies addressing other determinants of health, such as nutrition and socio-economic factors.
In conclusion, although it is apparent that diverting budgetary investments on medical treatment is crucial, I am inclined to protect the environment in terms of environmental pollution, and prevention – focused approach. It is advisable that the government should invest equally between two aforementioned aspects.


Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng

  1. "the government’s budget should value the citizen’s health" -> "the government’s budget should prioritize citizens’ health"
    Explanation: The suggested change maintains a formal tone by using "prioritize" instead of "value" and improves the possessive form by changing "citizen’s" to "citizens’."

  2. "Although both medical research and pollution treatment affect greatly on humans" -> "While both medical research and pollution control significantly impact human health"
    Explanation: The improved sentence uses "significantly impact" to convey the idea more precisely and adopts a more formal structure with "While" at the beginning.

  3. "I partly disagree with the point of priority to cure than prevent" -> "I partially disagree with the idea of giving higher priority to treatment over prevention."
    Explanation: The revised sentence uses "partially" instead of "partly" for formal consistency, and it rephrases the statement for clarity and formality.

  4. "First and foremost" -> "To begin with"
    Explanation: "To begin with" is a more academically appropriate transition phrase.

  5. "can have detrimental effects on human health" -> "can have adverse effects on human health"
    Explanation: "Adverse effects" is a formal term that replaces "detrimental effects" to maintain academic style.

  6. "governments can protect the health of their citizens" -> "governments can safeguard the well-being of their citizens"
    Explanation: "Safeguard the well-being" is a more formal and precise expression for government action.

  7. "economic than undergoing numerous medical treatments" -> "cost-effective than undergoing numerous medical treatments"
    Explanation: "Cost-effective" is a more appropriate term in academic writing, emphasizing efficiency and economics.

  8. "Had it not been for targeting the root causes" -> "Without addressing the underlying causes"
    Explanation: The revised phrase is more direct and formal.

  9. "Preventing illness and disease" -> "Preventing illnesses and diseases"
    Explanation: Plural form "illnesses and diseases" is more precise in this context.

  10. "I am inclined to protect the environment in terms of environmental pollution" -> "I am inclined to prioritize environmental protection, particularly in addressing pollution."
    Explanation: The suggested change enhances clarity and formal expression by specifying "environmental protection" and avoiding redundancy with "in terms of environmental pollution."

  11. "two aforementioned aspects" -> "the two aforementioned priorities"
    Explanation: Using "priorities" instead of "aspects" is more appropriate in an academic context to indicate the areas of focus.

Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

  1. Quoted text: "With the rapid advancement of the country, people hold divergent opinions on healthcare and environment that the government’s budget should value the citizen’s health rather than the surrounding environment. Although both medical research and pollution treatment affect greatly on humans, I partly disagree with the point of priority to cure than prevent."

    • Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: The introduction of the essay lacks clarity in presenting your stance on the issue. While you mention that you "partly disagree," it would be more effective to clearly state whether you agree or disagree with the prompt and provide a brief overview of your main points. This will help the reader understand your position from the start and improve the overall structure of your essay.
    • Improved example: "I partially disagree with the idea that the government should prioritize spending on medical research over environmental protection. In this essay, I will explain why both aspects are essential but argue that prevention should be a priority."
  2. Quoted text: "Additionally, the expenditure on preventing the causes is much more economic than undergoing numerous medical treatments. Had it not been for targeting the root causes of health issues through pollution reduction and improved housing conditions, governments would not have adopted a preventive approach to healthcare. Preventing illness and disease is more cost-effective and beneficial in the long run compared to treating them once they occur."

    • Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: This paragraph effectively highlights the economic benefits of prevention over treatment. However, it lacks specific examples or evidence to support your claims. To improve this section, consider providing real-life examples or scenarios that illustrate the cost-effectiveness of prevention. For instance, you could mention how investments in clean drinking water have reduced the incidence of waterborne diseases in certain regions, leading to significant cost savings for governments.
    • Improved example: "Additionally, investing in prevention is often more economically sound than covering the expenses of medical treatments. For instance, consider the case of City X, where the government invested in improving air quality and reducing pollution. As a result, cases of respiratory illnesses significantly decreased, leading to substantial savings in healthcare costs. This example demonstrates the financial benefits of prioritizing prevention over treatment."
  3. Quoted text: "However, it is important to note that improving environmental conditions and resolving housing problems alone may not completely eliminate all health risks. A comprehensive approach to public health should also include access to healthcare services, health education, and policies addressing other determinants of health, such as nutrition and socio-economic factors."

    • Explanation and Suggestions for Improvement: This paragraph raises a valid point about the need for a comprehensive approach to public health. However, it lacks specific details and examples to support this argument. To strengthen your essay, provide concrete examples of how access to healthcare services, health education, or policies addressing socio-economic factors have positively impacted public health in certain regions or communities. This will make your argument more persuasive.
    • Improved example: "However, it is important to note that while improving environmental conditions and housing is crucial, a comprehensive approach to public health should encompass various aspects. For example, consider the success of Country Y, where in addition to environmental improvements, the government implemented policies that ensured access to quality healthcare services for all citizens. This inclusive approach led to better overall health outcomes and can serve as a model for governments worldwide."

Overall, your essay presents a clear position and addresses all parts of the task. To improve, focus on providing specific examples and evidence to support your arguments, especially when discussing the economic benefits of prevention and the need for a comprehensive approach to public health.

Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
The essay demonstrates a reasonable level of coherence and cohesion, earning a score of 7.0 on the Coherence and Cohesion criteria. Here’s why:

  1. Logical Organization: The essay is logically organized, with a clear progression of ideas. It begins with an introduction that presents the topic and the writer’s position. The subsequent paragraphs follow a logical sequence, discussing the importance of environmental protection and prevention over medical treatment.

  2. Cohesive Devices: The essay effectively uses a range of cohesive devices to connect ideas within and between sentences. For instance, phrases like "First and foremost," "Additionally," "However," and "In conclusion" help guide the reader through the essay and show the relationships between ideas.

  3. Paragraphing: The essay uses paragraphs appropriately to group related ideas. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, which aids in clarity and organization.

  4. Central Topic: Each paragraph presents a clear central topic or point, contributing to the overall coherence of the essay. The writer maintains a clear focus on the discussion of healthcare, environmental protection, and prevention.

How to improve:
While the essay demonstrates a good level of coherence and cohesion, there is room for improvement to reach a higher band score:

  1. Variety of Cohesive Devices: To achieve a higher score, the writer could incorporate a wider range of cohesive devices, including synonyms, pronouns, and transitional phrases. This would further enhance the overall cohesion of the essay.

  2. Development of Counterarguments: To strengthen the argument, it would be beneficial to address potential counterarguments or opposing viewpoints in a dedicated paragraph. This would add depth to the essay’s analysis and coherence.

  3. Sentence-Level Cohesion: Ensure that cohesion within and between sentences is consistently strong. Avoid any instances of faulty or mechanical cohesion to achieve a higher score.

Overall, the essay effectively presents its arguments with a good level of coherence and cohesion. With some enhancements in the use of cohesive devices and the incorporation of counterarguments, it has the potential to achieve an even higher band score.

Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 6

Band Score: 6.0

Explanation: The essay demonstrates an adequate range of vocabulary for the task, with some attempts to use less common vocabulary. It effectively discusses the importance of both healthcare and environmental protection. However, there are some inaccuracies in word choice and collocation, and a few errors in spelling and word formation, although they do not significantly impede communication.

How to improve: To improve the lexical resource, the essay could benefit from using more precise and varied vocabulary throughout the text. Additionally, paying closer attention to word choice, spelling, and word formation will help reduce minor errors and improve overall clarity. Expanding on the vocabulary related to healthcare and environmental issues would also enhance the lexical richness of the essay.

Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7

Band Score: 7.0

Explanation:
This essay demonstrates a good command of grammatical range and accuracy. It utilizes a variety of complex structures, such as conditional sentences, and employs a mix of simple and complex sentence forms. The majority of sentences are error-free, and the essay has good control of grammar and punctuation. While there are some errors in grammar and punctuation, they do not significantly hinder communication. For instance, there is a minor issue with the placement of commas in a few places, but these errors do not obscure the intended meaning. Overall, the essay showcases a solid grasp of grammar and sentence structure.

How to improve:

  1. Pay attention to comma usage. Ensure that commas are placed correctly to avoid minor punctuation errors.
  2. Aim for even more complex sentence structures to further enhance the essay’s overall grammatical range and accuracy. This could involve using a wider variety of subordinate clauses and sentence types.
  3. Continue to proofread carefully to eliminate any remaining minor errors.

Bài sửa mẫu

In the fast-evolving landscape of our nation, there exists a divergence of opinions regarding the allocation of the government’s budget. Some argue that the government should prioritize citizens’ health over the surrounding environment. While both medical research and pollution control significantly impact human health, I partially disagree with the idea of giving higher priority to treatment over prevention.

To begin with, the environment deserves precedence primarily because it plays a pivotal role in disease prevention. Pollution, such as air and water pollution, can have adverse effects on human health. Poor air quality, for instance, contributes to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular issues, and a range of other health problems. Similarly, water pollution can lead to waterborne diseases. By focusing on reducing pollution, governments can safeguard the well-being of their citizens and prevent various illnesses.

Furthermore, directing resources towards preventing the root causes of health issues proves to be more cost-effective than undergoing numerous medical treatments. Without addressing the underlying causes, governments would not have adopted a preventive approach to healthcare. Preventing illnesses and diseases is not only economically sound but also more beneficial in the long run compared to treating them once they occur.

However, it is important to note that improving environmental conditions and resolving housing problems alone may not completely eliminate all health risks. A comprehensive approach to public health should also include access to healthcare services, health education, and policies addressing other determinants of health, such as nutrition and socio-economic factors.

In conclusion, although it is apparent that diverting budgetary investments to medical treatment is crucial, I am inclined to prioritize environmental protection, particularly in addressing pollution. It is advisable that the government should invest equally in the two aforementioned priorities.

Bài viết liên quan

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

119K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

149K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

299K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K

159K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K

199K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

  • Hoàn tiền 30 ngày

    Bạn được đảm bảo trong 30 ngày đầu tiên được phép hoàn tiền bất kỳ lúc nào với bất kỳ lý do nào.

VIP

499K

399K/th

Learner

  • 10 bài chấm/ ngày

  • Tốc độ trả bài chậm

  • Có thể không truy cập được ở giờ cao điểm

Plus

199K/th

  • Không giới hạn bài chấm

  • Tốc độ trả bài nhanh hơn

  • Truy cập 24/7

Best for Teacher

Premium

249K/th

  • Gói Plus

  • Hỗ trợ kĩ thuật

  • Xuất file Word/Google Docs kèm comments: Link Demo

    - Bài chấm sẽ dc xuất kèm comments gợi ý vocab
    - File Word có thể dc up lên Google Docs và các comments sẽ dc giữ nguyên
    - Các comments có thể dc chỉnh sửa theo ý muốn của gv
    - File Word cá nhân hóa & White label

VIP

499K/th

  • Everthing in Premium

  • Hand Writing Image Recognition

  • Better Accuracy with GPT-4

  • Early Access to New features

    - Speaking Feedback

  • Customization

    We help with minor customizations to get it working just right.

  • Support Development of New Features

    • Speaking Practice
    • Classroom Management (e.g., Google Class Room)
    • Reading Practice
    • Listening Practice