It is more important to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is disputed that the authorities should invest in the promotion of a more active lifestyle rather than investing the curement of the sick. I partly agree with this suggestion as both approaches have their own advantages and believe that the government funding should be harnessed to meet the need of both.
It is understandable why some people advocate to the view that government should subsidize for those who have illnesses. This is because people have already contributed to their society through the tax system. Additionally, one of the foremost functions of public fund is to take care of the well-being of people. It is thus reasonable that individuals can reap the medical assitance from the wellfare system when they are sick. More importantly, treatmeant of the vulnerable is a demonstration of a civilized society. By supporting the patients, especially those who are disadvantged, governments send a message to the public that people are entitled access to the medical services, which gives them a sense of security.
Conversely, promotion of healthy ways of life implies several merits for the public. This encourages the active living ways which counter the negative implications of ubiquitous sedentary lifestyle nowadays. Given the technological advances in recent years, people have a tendency to reduce their physical activities due to the working nature and entertainment, which demand workers sit and mantain their postures in longer period. Another benefit of the government funding active lifestyle is reflected in the social life of their citizens. To encourage people do more exercises, governments often allocate the financial resources at its disposal to constructe recreational areas, public places at which sport equipment is installed. This supplies civilians with locations to socilize and expand their social circle, which give them a sense of communal life and fulfillment.
In sum, I am of the idea that public fund should be diverted in both healthy lifestle promotion and illness treament. While it is the responsibility of the government to safeguard their people from adversity, investment from public money in popularizing active lifestyle ameliorates the risks of modern life and strengthen the social solidarity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-02 | Afdalah Harris | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | vttphuong.d19 | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-15 | thadsha1999 | 56 | view |
| 2022-11-27 | tttttttttt | 61 | view |
| 2022-11-12 | Charles Le | 78 | view |
- It is often argued that it is difficult to get children to read Why do you think this is What measures could be taken to encourage children to read more Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience 89
- Many young people today choose or are forced to go and work abroad What are the advantages and disadvantages of living and working in a foreign country compared with living and working in your own country Discuss both views and give your own opinion 89
- Companies use major sporting events to promote their products Some people think it has a negative effect on sport in general To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- Environmental damage is a problem in most countries What factors damage the environment and who should take responsibility 89
- Around the world many adults are working from home and more children are beginning to study from home because technology has become cheaper and more accessible Do you think this is a positive or negative development 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 565, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...pporting the patients, especially those who are disadvantged, governments send a messag...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, if, so, then, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 41.998997996 112% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1919.0 1615.20841683 119% => OK
No of words: 350.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48285714286 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03791147377 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 176.041082164 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548571428571 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 506.74238477 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3562546346 49.4020404114 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.9375 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.875 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 7.06120827912 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166853636935 0.244688304435 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0546271888305 0.084324248473 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0406244588212 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106206011079 0.151304729494 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0316453856108 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 78.4519038076 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.