Writing Feedback / Who is responsible for Medical Services ? [6]

Medical services are quite necessary for one's health. Therefore, some people think that medical services should be run by the government rather than by profit-making companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree.

The progress of medical services is inevitable and necessary. What's under controversy is that whether it should be run by the government or to profit-making companies. From my point of view, running by the government maybe a better choice for the medical services.

What's of the top priority is that government can give a better control of the medical services, like the medical price, quality and so on. Doctors in such hospitals are more famous than the profit-making companies because of their high quality and various working experience,.

On second thoughts, profit-making companies may the disease to patient in order to get more profit from them. As we know, the main purpose of these company is to get as much profit as possible so that patients may have to m=pay a large amount of money for a light disease only.

However, profit-making companies still have its own merits. It is always known for us about its nice environment, the superior services and high efficiency. People who is suffering an emergency disease can also choose door service out of the working time. That's what the government service can never hold a handle to. This kind of service can bring us more convenient in some settings so that it also has a huge market needs.

Just as a saying goes, every coin has its two sides. Personally I would highlight the merits of the government medical service more than the profit-making company.

Writing Feedback / IELTS ESSAY- Old people are more valued than the youth? [5]

In some cultures, old people are more valued, but in other cultures, the youth are more valued. What's your opinion?

Old and youth exist in our society as a common appearance. What's under controversy is that whether old people or youth are more valued. In my point of view, old people are always playing an irreplaceable role in our society so that they definitely have the better value.

What's of priority is that old people always have more experience than the youth. As we know, the youth usually ask for help from the old people when they are suffering failure or having some emotion problems. They want to get more advice from the old instead of the age mates because of their valued experience and wisdom. The second thought is that it can be easily seen that most companies or organizations are run by the old. For instance, the cosmetics ads on the screen may make people feel that the cosmetic companies are run by the youth. On contrast, showing the youth on the screen is only a way to attract more clients' attention and the leaders of the company are mostly old. Moreover, the affection of age would help old people to receive more respect than the youth. In that case the words said by old people can influence more people than the youth.

However, aging population is still facing some problems. The procession of aging population is inevitable and undeniable, in that case youth should spend more time in taking care of the old people instead of working or relaxing. Secondly, creative ideas which can help us to develop new things would be less worked out by old people. Thirdly, old people spend less time on shopping which would also slow down the economic growth.

In conclusion, aging population has both merits and demerits, but the advantages it brings us are much more than the disadvantages.

Writing Feedback / IELTS ; Leading a Simple Life helps protect our environment? [2]

Some people think we should live a simpler life in order to protect the environment, while others believe science and technology can solve environmental problems. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is inevitable and undeniable that our environment has been seriously polluted in recent years. What under controversy is whether we should live a simpler life or using the science and technology to protect the environment. To be frank, both sides have their merits and demerits.

To start with, a simpler life can definitely help us a more environmentally living circumstance because of the less produced pollution and the less used resources. Besides, a simpler life may lead people a healthier life style. We can choose some simple activities such as hiking, running and swimming instead of watching TV at home. In that case, it can not only help us to save resources but also give us a great situation to share time with our friends and family, which also lead us a better mood in protect the environment.

On the other hand, the beneficial which brought to us by science and technology can be seen obviously. More and more technical equipment appears in our daily lives and absolutely make our society move on in a faster speed. Besides, those high-tech products attract more attention from the others to our country. Just think of the newly robot created by our scientists, which attract the notice from many foreign countries and it also brings a great economic beneficial to our country. In that case, we can not only protect the environment by using the high-tech products, but also have more money to spend on our environmental protection.

In my opinion, both views have their own advantages and disadvantages. A simpler life can reduce the let out pollution while it also takes many kinds of entertainment activities away from us. We produce high-tech products to protect the environment unaware that the environment had been seriously polluted by our productive process. Facing this situation, I suppose that if we combine those two views together, which means release the pollution made by the production and experience a simpler life now and then. In that case our environment problems would probably be better solved.

In conclusion, I think we should not rely on simpler lives or science and technology only, but try to receive the merits from both of them, then a better environment would be developed more easily.