▶ Your Answer :
As everything in life is like a coin that has two different sides, people must weight the pros and cons before jumping to conclusions. After all, each and every topics and question require careful deliberation in that there are multiple variables to a truth. Even though some may adamantly believe that it is more important for the government to improve healthcare than to clean the environment, I strongly believe that such opinion lacks coherence to some extent. In my humble opinion, it is more crucial for the government to care for the environment than healthcare for the following reasons for the following two subsequent reasons. .
To begin with, improving the environment is more indispensable for the government than to enhance healthcare because it has more practical values on its nations. When the government invests more money on public transportation by making it more affordable and convenient, people will use bus and train to commute to school or work instead of their individual cars. Less usage of cars will reduce the emission of harmful gases that change weather pattern, which results in natural disasters. As natural disasters often demolish the entire city at once, preventing them will save tons of people from potential danger. For example, recently Texas has suffered from unexpected massive flooding, which wiped out half of the population and led to property damage. It was a rare phenomenon for a state known for its dry weather. Many experts are linking link this event to an increase in CO2, mainly caused by driving cars. Their argument is based on the fact that the number of cars has been increasing every year. If the government implements more sustainable policy, and individuals actively participate in them, this joint effort can reduce natural disasters as well as save thousands of people’s lives. In other words, it is necessary for the government to spend money on improving the environment. On the other hand, the support on healthcare system such as economic support for people who suffer from cancer will not have much benefit on people. According to the research conducted at Korea University, the number of people who die of cancer or other diseases is less compared to that of people who die of natural disasters annually. Thus, it is not money efficient for the government to prioritize in promoting healthcare system before bettering the environment if they have limited funds. (왜 정부가 대중교통에 돈을 더 투자를 해야하는지에 대한 에세이이기 때문에 다른 정보에 대한 부분은 서술할 필요가 없습니다)
In addition, it is not critical for the government to invest money in improving healthcare system because many of its citizens are able to pay for their own healthcare services. As a lot of industries have created for the last 100 years, more job sectors and more job positions have been created, which improved people’s standard of living. Since people nowadays have a surplus of money, they can afford to pay for their own healthcare system.
In summation, yes, it’s virtually impossible to provide a completely satisfying answer to an open-ended question. Even though the jury may be out on the given essay topic, we can come to a mutual agreement that it is more significant for the government to support the environment than healthcare system.
점수: 22 단락의 균형화가 굉장히 필요해 보이는 독립형 에세이입니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우는 첫 번째 단락 같은 경우는 너무 장황하게 서술하였는데 두 번째 단락 같은 경우는 너무 간결하게 서술하였습니다. 첫 번째 단락 같은 경우는 특히 반대 의견에 대하여서 너무 장황하게 설명하였는데. 이러한 부분은 필요하지 않습니다. 숙지하면서 에세이를 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다. |