Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The prompt claims that governtments should focus on finding way to solve imminent problems rahter trying to mediate problems further in the future. It is true that problem closer to the present should be emphasized on. However, this principle should not be brought to the extreme. Patching present problems at the cost of the future is generally not a good idea. Moreover, considering how to solve future issues might give the government ideas on how to solve current issues while solving present, easier problems might give inspiration for solutions for future, harder problems.
Issues that are causing pressing problems to the community right now should be the priority of the government. For example, if the water source for a city is contaminated by local industry, the issue is urgent and dangerous. The city government needs to adress it immidietely. Cleaning up the water or providing citizens with alternative water sources should be on top of government's to-do list. These actions might drain the government funding for the future. It might raise problems for future planned project like the expansion of the local railway station. However, it is unwise for the local government to ignore the water contamination just because they want to reserve the money for future project. The immidiate problem would render the city empty in a short amount of time, leaving the railway expansion plan moot regardless. Thus, when the current problem is pressing and dangerous, all attention should be pointed towatds solving it.
However, current issue should not be solved with no regard to the future. Continouning our previous example, if the local government decided to solve the problem of water contamination by closing all local polluting industry. That might solve the problem at present, but it is not a long term solution. If the city is heavily reliant on these industries, it would actually create more problem in the future. Closing of large portion of local industry would hurt the local economy. Drastic actions against factories like these might discourage other companies to move in this city to open new factories. The easy and direct solutions for current problem will create devasting destruction to the city, maybe even render the city desolated. Therefore, it is apparent that treating current needs at the expense of the future should not be recommended.
The prompt acts as if governments needs to choose between solving current problem and considering future needs. Instead, doing both at the same time might be the most efficient. It might be the case that by coming up with solutions for current issues at hand, methods and ideas can be developed that might help to solve future problems. The government could be planning for future issues when it discoveres surprising ways to remidy current problems along with the future one. The solution of current and future problems does not have to be mutual exclusive. Therefore, no matter the government is considering current issues or planning for future needs, the other one should not be completely ignored but considered concurrently.
In summation, while it is intuitive for governments to focus on current problems. The solutions for them should not be harmful to the future. At the mean time, considering present and future issues all togehter might lead to the most optimized plan that solves both.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | Himanshu Sharma | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-26 | tg763622253 | 58 | view |
| 2019-11-27 | mohan41 | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | louisetse | 66 | view |
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 66
- Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic increasing commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving 82
- Government funding for purely scientific endeavors should be reduced in order to direct more function towards humanitarian science project. 50
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.Write a response in which you discuss 66
- Luck plays more of a role in determining success than work ethic does.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reason 58
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.4196629213 209% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 58.6224719101 113% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2839.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 548.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18065693431 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65691112026 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 215.323595506 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432481751825 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 866.7 704.065955056 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8093415168 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.5806451613 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6774193548 23.4991977007 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.03225806452 5.21951772744 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 5.13820224719 370% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.19922955219 0.243740707755 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0718155736324 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552582817046 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146287892816 0.150359130593 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0532591505476 0.0667264976115 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.1392134831 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.38706741573 95% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.