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 managed 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 stems from the fact that people have already contributed to their society through the tax system, and one of the foremost functions of public fund is to contribute to the well-being of people. It is thus allowing individuals to reap the medical assitance from the wellfare system is one way for government shouldering its responsibility. More importantly, a civilized society is characterized by access to healthcare of the needy people. By supporting the ill, especially those who are disadvantaged, governments send a message to the public that all people can be assured about their health when they are sick, unemployed or retired. In this case, social solidarity can be demonstrated.
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's wellness is jeorpadised due to the shift in working nature. In the modern workplaces, many workers sit and mantain their postures in a long period, which imparts their reflex and places them at risk of cardiovascular diseases. Another benefit of the government funding active lifestyle is reflected in the social life of the citizens. To motivate people to do more exercises, government often allocates the financial resources at its disposal to construct recreational areas, public places with sport equipment installed. This supplies civilians with locations to socilize and expand their social circle, which give them a sense of communal life.
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 invigorating active lifestyle ameliorates the effects of modern life, and fosters 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 |
- 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
- Crimes committed by young people are increasing in major cities throughout the world Discuss the causes and how to solve for this problem 89
- Instead of training a few athletes to win medals at the Olympics governments should spend the money on programmes encouraging the public to be active and stay healthy To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement 89
- These days the fashions in clothing are constantly changing Is this affecting individuals and the environment in positive or a negative way Give reasons for your answer and support by giving examples 67
- Nowadays people use bicycles less as a form of transport Why is that What can we do to encourage people to use bicycles more 78
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, if, so, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 13.1623246493 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 10.4138276553 77% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 1615.20841683 125% => OK
No of words: 373.0 315.596192385 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42627345845 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.20363070211 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03252120119 2.80592935109 108% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 176.041082164 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.554959785523 0.561755894193 99% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 506.74238477 126% => 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: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.0433884846 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.058823529 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9411764706 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.47058823529 7.06120827912 35% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167869197806 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529530494014 0.084324248473 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0451323888492 0.0667982634062 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108195845784 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308239397315 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 13.0946893788 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.4159519038 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.55 8.58950901804 111% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 78.4519038076 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.