Some people believe that the government should pay for and offer housing to people who lost their homes or cannot afford them. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give your own opinion. Use specific reasons and examples to support it.
Whether the government should support people who lost their homes ,offering them housing, is one of the issues widely discussed around the world. Some feel it is the government’s duty, while others disagree. In my opinion, the first approach is more beneficial both for individuals and society.
It is true that supporting people who have lost their homes might seem like a heavy burden for taxpayers. The main argument is society cannot afford it, taking into consideration other numerous problems like crime level, unemployment, environment protection and the like. Does it mean we should turn away from people who survived after disasters? –Of course, not. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and avalanches bring horrible damages to people’s properties, leaving hundreds of victims behind.
However, if people have stayed virtually in the street with no place to live in, undoubtedly they cannot be ignored. If they are not given any support, they can easily get furious and be involved into crimes. As a result, crime rates will ascend dramatically. It is clear that all cases of loosing property have to be thoroughly investigated. For example, if a man was drunk and set up a fire at home, he has to take responsibilities for his actions. But still he deserves to be given a tiny room in housing commission somewhere in the outskirts. Moreover, there are natural catastrophies, like the flood happened in north Queensland last month. Needless to say that without the government’s support people cannot overcome such disasters. They have gone through enough hardship, hence they need to be shown our compassion, and not only in words, but in deeds as well. Another reason is a moral example for our children. We all treasure Christian values, which teach us to be generous to those who are in need. Of course, without the world’s collaboration, the Red Cross activity and numerous voluntary organisations, a lot of developing countries like Ghana, Angola and others, would never be able to overcome the terrible consequences of natural disasters.
In conclusion, people who lost their homes cannot be left alone and should be given support from the government.
- Some sports are extremely dangerous but many people still like them very much. Why do people take part in dangerous sports? Give some suggestions on how to deal with these dangers. Give reason for your answer and include any relevant examples from your ow 80
- As the world’s supply of oil and natural gas continue to diminish, governments are constantly seeking alternatives to traditional energy resources, such as nuclear power. Do you think this is a positive or a negative development? 80
- It is generally accepted that families are not as close as they used to be. Give some reasons why this change has happened and suggest how families could be brought close together. Include any relevant information from your experience. 65
- Internet access for minors can be dangerous. Do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge and experience. 70
- A recent study showed that both developed and developing countries prosper because of economic growth People from developing countries are much happier than before while people from developed countries are not as happy as they were in the past Why is that 62
The main argument is society cannot afford it
The main argument is that society cannot afford it
Sentence: Moreover, there are natural catastrophies, like the flood happened in north Queensland last month.
Error: catastrophies Suggestion: catastrophes
flaws:
The following content should be put into the third paragraph:
'Does it mean we should turn away from people who survived after disasters? –Of course, not. Earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and avalanches bring horrible damages to people’s properties, leaving hundreds of victims behind.'
Attribute Value Ideal
Score:7.0 out of 9
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 351 350
No. of Characters: 1758 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.328 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.009 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.755 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.804 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.265 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.412 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5