Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
The statement asserts that governments should prioritize solving immediate problems than anticipated problems of the future. Though I partake governments should resolve the immediate problems first, the anticipated problems of the future should be given the same priority.
Admittedly, some immediate problems are so severe that they cannot bear any time lags. Through solving immediate problems, governments can make some clear and warranted achievements for the benefit of the people. For example, immediately shutting down heavy industries can reduce cities particulate matter volume and render cities a green image. Constructing more highways can resolve every day’s traffic jams. Building more apartments can mitigate the high price of estates. Deteriorated living space, polluted air, inefficient traffic network and the high price of living are immediate problems that relate directly to the public’s well-being. Surely, it is a government’s responsibility to put these problems high on their agenda.
That said, solving today’s problems in consideration of tomorrow’s problems can give governments a bigger image of what needs to be done. After seeing the whole picture, governments can elaborate a long-term plan to totally eradicate the problems of today and tomorrow. Taking Bordeaux Metropolitan as an example, in order to retreat the polluted river, Bordeaux authorities did not limit their eyes on the river itself. They link the current pollution problems with the anticipated problems brought by Global warming and the rise of sea levels. Through connecting these problems, the government released a plan of Natural Cure. This plan transforms a polluted river into a marine animal preservation. Compared with the traditional cleaning plan that uses chemical products, this plan requests only physical cleaning which is cleaner and more ecofriendly. Furthermore, this area is designed as a sponge that responds positively to the raise of sea-levels. Anticipating the future’s urban issue helps Bordeaux authorities to elaborate a single plan that resolves two questions at once, at low-cost with more benefits.
Focusing only on today’s immediate problems and ignoring the future’s anticipated problems brings detrimental effects. First, resolutions to only the immediate problems carries the risk of being palliative rather than curative. “Ghost Cities” adequately illustrate this point. Local governments failed to associate the immediate problem of housing shortage with the hidden threat of environmental problems. New buildings were born at the expense of nature. After having settled down for several years, new residents moved out to other cities because of flooding and sandstorms. Thus, the whole city turned to a ghost city. All efforts that the local government made, in terms of time, money and human force, are in vain.
Suffice to note, governments focusing only on immediate problems will give scholars a wrong signal that the government cares only about research producing practical and immediate benefits. This wrong signal deeply frustrates scholars who study into the very cutting-edge technologies. However, these cutting-edge technologies, which may not bring benefits right now, may resolve a problem totally. Taking the technique of terraforming as an example, although, it cannot resolve the diverse urban issue, this technique can make these urban issues obsolete by building new cities in other planets. Thus, by looking for immediate solutions for the pressing problems, governments may miss other creative and efficient solutions.
In sum, governments should begin to resolve the pressing problems immediately because it same time and gives a hint on how to solve future problems. However, they should not ignore the anticipated problems of the future. For that, combining two types of problems provides a better solution at lower costs with more benefits. In contrast, ignoring the future problems a risk of wasting resources and indirectly affects the corresponding research into possible solutions.
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 |
- In the past it was easier to identify what type of career or job would lead to a secure, successful future 73
- 143. No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field. 建议Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning f 83
- 48. Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. 建议Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explai 83
- Educational institutions should actively encourage their students to choose fields of study that will prepare them for lucrative careers. Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 66
- 65. *Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. 事实Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your positi 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ld resolve the immediate problems first, the anticipated problems of the future s...
^^
Line 7, column 919, Rule ID: DT_RESPONDS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'response'?
Suggestion: response
... this area is designed as a sponge that responds positively to the raise of sea-levels. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, look, may, so, thus, well, for example, in contrast
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 58.6224719101 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3513.0 2235.4752809 157% => OK
No of words: 605.0 442.535393258 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.80661157025 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95951083803 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01518140399 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 309.0 215.323595506 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510743801653 0.4932671777 104% => OK
syllable_count: 1079.1 704.065955056 153% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 20.2370786517 173% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1251858477 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.371428571 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2857142857 23.4991977007 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.28571428571 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 22.0 5.13820224719 428% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.420720167783 0.243740707755 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108440100842 0.0831039109588 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.133461681644 0.0758088955206 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265516328459 0.150359130593 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.144481130161 0.0667264976115 217% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.1392134831 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.12 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 177.0 100.480337079 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.