Statistics gathered over the past three decades show that the death rate is higher among those who do not have jobs than among those with regular employment. Unemployment, just like heart disease and cancer, is a significant health issue. While many health care advocates promote increased government funding for medical research and public health care, it would be folly to increase government spending if doing so were to affect the nation's economy adversely and ultimately cause a rise in unemployment. A healthy economy means healthy citizens.
TOEFL writing유형이 아니어서 어떤 식으로 도움을 드려야 할지 모르겠네요^^
일단은 전반적인 논리 흐름이나 문법 부분만 제가 아는대로 체크해두겠습니다. 다른 게시판에 올려보시는 게 좋을 것 같아요.
In the reading passage, the writer points out a negative aspect of funding for medical research and public health care, because it has a risk to affect nation's economy adversely and cause a rise in unemployment. The argument is, from one perspective, is persuasive if we consider the side effect of funding governmental expenditure to public health care, which may give harmful effect on economic growth. However, to make his thought more convincing, the author must give more detailed information as follows.
First of all, the statistics that the writer mentions is uncertain whether it reveals the causal relationships between the death rate and employment status. To be specific, we can rightly assume that unemployed people are already prone to have severe disease, that is, too sick to have a job. In this circumstance, even if the economic situations improve and job opportunities increase, they cannot take the job due to pre-existed bad health condition. Therefore, to make the writer's argument reasonable, he must analyse that if someone is on the unemployed circumstance for a long time, he or she is likely to become ill and result in death. By doing so, his argument that unemployment is a significant health issue becomes persuasive. 실업문제와 건강문제를 연결한 writing의 base에 대해 인과관계가 부족하다는 점을 지적하는 것은 reasonable한 것 같습니다.
Second, it is indeed true that there are some trade-off relationships between funding for public health and funding to create a job. This is a kind of debate between welfare and growth. The writer assumes that investing government budgets to medical research or public health program will cause to decrease decline of in boosting the economy. However, many economists have insisted the contrast views. For instance, Nobel economics prize laureate Paul Krugman said in his article in the Journal of Public Economics, "Americans have witnessed the positive relationship between promoting health care program and boosting economic growth. It seems that by improving the quality of health with government funding, people are more likely to spend less money on treating their disease and prefer to consume goods and services, which leads to economic growth and enhance job prospects." If this is the case, the writer's views on welfare versus vs. growth issue is myopic and should be modified. 문단의 중심 내용이 명확하지 않습니다. 많은 경제학자들이 반대 입장을 취한다는 점이 내가 내세우는 '반박 근거'는 아니니까요. '왜' 내가 writing의 주장이 reasonable하지 않다고 생각하는지를 정리해서 제시해주세요. 어떤 영문 에세이를 쓰던 간에 두괄식 문형에 맞게 구성한다고 생각하시면 좀 더 전달력이 높은 글을 쓰실 수 있을 거예요^^
What the writer argues in the reading passage, 'A healthy economy means health citizens', clearly shows show a crucial aspect of human society. If people's health conditions become better, the chances of economic growth will increase and, fundamentally there will be more available jobs. However, to prove this logic, the writer should give more detailed analysis about the causal relationship between the death rate and the number of unemployed people, and correlation between funding for public health and increasing employment rate. By doing so, the author's argument can be cogent, reasonable, and persuasive.
기본적인 글의 흐름 자체는 잘 구성되어 있는 것 같습니다. 어떤 유형이든 간에 essay writing에서는 요지가 뚜렷하게 드러나고 불필요한 내용 없이 내용이 전개되는 부분을 중점적으로 체크하므로 이 부분을 염두에 두시면서 작성하시면 될 것 같아요. 수고 많으셨습니다^^ 화이팅!