Writing Feedback / medical treatment ielts test question [7]

Most developed countries spend a large proportion of their health budgets on expensive medical technology and procedures. This money should be spent instead on health education to keep people well. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There is burgeoning number of debate regarding the amount of expenditure spends by first world countries in regards to health between spending in research and institution and health promotion. Some sectors believe that the budget for health should be emphasized increasing research and medical technology. However, Other believe that instead of focusing on technological advancement, we should rather focus on health education and prevention. In my opinion the capital spending in health should be divided proportionally based on the needs of one country. This essay will discuss the side of the two issues and leave the final opinion of the topic to the reader.

Some people believe that developed country should emphasize their health budget on medical breakthroughs. They perceive that most of this country has the capital means to do the job. For instance, developing vaccine against the latest diseases or latest medicines for several diseases, which in turn will be beneficial for the future. Moreover, Success in discovering this innovation will put the nation to the worldwide map.

However, Other views this as irrelevant and budget should instead be focus on building individual knowledge and skills. They believe the health promotion is better than cure. According tot them, the benefits of health education are better for people to keep well because it doesn't consume large amount of money, thus it can be allocated better to more people. Unlike research, the error margin of health promotion is close to zero and the amount of expenses that we can allocate from this are almost cheaper than doing focusing on medical breakthrough.

In my opinion, It is important not to disregard the need of individuals in term of health. The expenses for health should address everyone in their nation of their needs. However, If a develop country has a means to promote advancement in the medical field, it will be better, not only for their country but also for the whole nation.

Writing Feedback / futuristic city vs marvelous artifacts - historical building IELTS essay [4]

Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples tosupport your opinion.

A change should be done effectively if we want to progress more in the future. There is a burgeoning question in regards to changing old, historical infrastructure with modern building. There are two facets in this issue. In my opinion, the degree of modernizing a city lies on the effectiveness of a project in projecting its significance in the future.

Old infrastructure should be destruct if we find any significance for this change. If the building begins to obstruct a street and causes a lot of traffic then it is prudent that we should torn down this building regardless of its significance. Moreover, most of old infrastructures have a poor fire safety and the immediate treat from the neighborhood is in question. This in turn also may give a significant reason for a building to be destroyed.

However, We should not destroy them entirely just because we feel that we need to change these to a new building. Most of the historical buildings have significant values in the city development. Losing it will deprive education and appreciation of our younger generation. However, destroying an infrastructure is not a sole option for modernizing a city. Most of the technology today can aim on relocating this building to other site, which can also preserve its values.

In my opinion, as we aim to develop a futuristic city we should still take account on the marvelous artifacts that we have in the past. Technological breakthroughs have made these possible for us.