Governments should focus on solving immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Government should deal with both short-term policies and long-term policies. However, some people argue that governments should focus on solving immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. I agree with this statement in that government should deal with the most pressing matters which affects people’s lives first.
Admittedly, government should try to solve the forecasted issue for the circumstances of preventing the hazard of natural disasters. For example, Japan is often hit by earthquakes. It is indispensable for Japanese to build structures with seismic designs. Thus, even though earthquake is not predicted in the foreseeable future, Japanese government should revise seismic design code of buildings and repair structures which do not have earthquake proof designs. It is important to take care of the circumstances associated with the predicted natural disasters since it can affect a great number of people’s lives
However, for the circumstances of serious economic difficulties, it is more important for governments to deal with immediate problems. New Deal is the compelling example of appropriate action of the government in the situation of severe economic crisis, Great Depression. As Great Depression exacerbated not only the nation as a whole but also the everyday lives of people, it was crucial for governments to make interventions. The United States could have economic recovery since Roosevelt successfully gave solutions for government involvement and welfare works. If the government does not intervene at a suitable moment, economic difficulties cannot be solved. Therefore, it is better for governments to focus on immediate economic problems.
Moreover, for the circumstances of military issues, it is more momentous for government to solve present problems. For instance, Korea is divided nation and North Korea frequently shows the actions of military provocation. If Korean government does not focus on the immediate provocation, it may lead to the actual military attacks. ROKS Cheonan sinking occurred in 2010. Before it happened, South Korean government detected the signs of provocation. However, they did not order the military to be on a full alert. As a result, ROKS Cheonan sank and more than forty people died in this incident. Military issues are not only related with diplomacy but also related with people’s lives. Thus, government should focus on solving immediate problems for the military related issues.
In conclusion, there are few circumstances for which government should focus more on the immediate problems. When the issues affect a myriad of people’s lives, government should go the extra mile for resolving those problems.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | Himanshu Sharma | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-30 | PFF TAHSAN | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | tg763622253 | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | sudesh tiwari | 58 | view |
- Governments should focus on solving immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 54
- People’s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings that by society as a whole. 50
- People's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting 58
- When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 619, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ct a great number of people's lives However, for the circumstances of seriou...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 12.9106741573 155% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2358.0 2235.4752809 105% => OK
No of words: 418.0 442.535393258 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64114832536 5.05705443957 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08391393705 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483253588517 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 704.065955056 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.740449438202 135% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.1475279032 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.25 118.986275619 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4166666667 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.21951772744 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.325888644355 0.243740707755 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10461201079 0.0831039109588 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.176163693614 0.0758088955206 232% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204378754859 0.150359130593 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144949295297 0.0667264976115 217% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.14 12.1639044944 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 100.480337079 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.