In many countries, the life expectancy is used as indicators to monitor the health of population

One of the consequences of improved medical care is that people are living longer and life expectancy is increasing. Do you think the disadvantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

Nowadays, advance medical care brings changes in quality of human life. As a consequence, the population will have life longer and the life expectancy will increase. I strongly believe that the improvement in curative science will give better impact than drawback to development.

To begin, people can access all of the services to improve their health because there are many health care providing sub-specialty treatment which can solve health problems so that they will be life longer and will prevent from injuries. To illustrate, when someone will get surgery, doctor used sword in the past, while now they can use surgical instrument like scalpel. As it can be seen from the example, the cutting age in medical equipment will facilitate surgeons at work so it causes the patients that will be live longer.

In many countries, they are using life expectancy as indicators to monitor the health of their population. For example, the United States of America uses that indicators in the framework of their nationwide health promotion and disease prevention plan. Furthermore, if a country has the highest average number of years that a person can be expected to live longer, it indicates that their population live well. Furthermore, it is very important for decision maker that a healthy population will not burden the financial of government.

The aforementioned evidence shows that there are good effects compared to negative effects on the improvement. It is imperative that government should control this issue as soon as possible and keep do something to prevent from other population problems and also maintain public health.

Hey dcho, here are some suggestions and personal thoughts for your references

1. I personally don't agree living longer and life expectancy is consider as consequence of improved medical care. Living longer and life expectancy is not necessary negative, moreover, positively....

2. I suggest you rewrite your thesis, because the first impression of your essay is currently confusing.

3. I had many grammar mistakes, I will look further more after the confusion is cleared.

4. Make sure you use variety usage of vocabs and synonyms as many words has repeated a lot.

5.


do you meant by, advantage over disadvantage?

5. Do you think the disadvantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
do you meant by, advantage over disadvantage?
Yes, that is question for task 2, to be greater or more important than something else.

Andri, it will be in your best interest to revise the whole essay that you have written. A number of reasons exist that make it evident that simply writing a new essay is necessary. The first reason being that your opening statement is just plain confusing. Second, your examples are just not applicable (sword vs. scalpel) because of it is archaic in relevance or just doesn't apply to modern medicine. Third, your essay does not evenly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of living longer.

You should learn to asses the requirements of the prompt with your current discussion. The prompt contains all of the guide questions that you need to make sure are represented in the essay. Double checking your response for prompt responsiveness would have helped you avoid that problems that your essay has. If there is a question in the prompt that you cannot find a response to in your essay, then your essay needs to be revised. That is the simple way of editing your essay. I hope you can apply it to your future work.