Writing Feedback / Advantages and disadvantages of countries having young population. [NEW]

youthful demographic

In these days and age, several nations recorded changes in their demographic proportion as the number of young people has dominated. This trend has proven to offer both opportunities such as plentiful manpower and tax base; as well as shortcomings like worsen living standard and overpopulation.

On the one hand, having a youthful population brings many benefits. Firstly, this trend provides countries with a considerable amount of productive workforce. This is due to the fact that most youngsters possess competent physical health, creativity and enthusiam, which meets the evergrowing demand for laborious blue collar jobs along with white collar jobs. Secondly, having more young working citizens equals to a sufficient tax base. To be specific, taxes paid by workers not only contribute to the development of the countries' economy but can also be invested in the advancement of social services like education and healthcare.

On the other hand, such proportion of population poses a number of threats to the countries. Firstly, overcrowding young population put strain on available social services. For instance, enlarging workforce usually associates with either food, water and accommodation defficiency or counter-productive consumerism. Thus, dwellers may undergo poor living standard and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Secondly, further subsequent drawbacks of overpopulation might occur as the consequence of the aformentioned trend. Competitive working environment and the constant demand for lucrative, high-paid jobs are likely to result in unemployment, hence the expected increase in crime rate, especially juvenile delinquency; poverty, illiteracy and so on.

In conclusion, while a youthful demographic portion provides countries with economic potential; it deprives many people of standard living condition. From my perspective, the disadvantage hardly outweight the advantages in this situation.

Writing Feedback / It is argued that knowledge should be spread publicly amongst the academic world [7]

Should important information be shared or not?

It is argued that knowledge should be spread publicly amongst the academic world, whilst other assume that several specific informatuon must be confidential to the authorities solely. This essay will discuss both views and offer my opinion.

Proponent of the former assumption mught believe tha informatuon should be open to the public for a number of reason. Firstly, publicized information allows people to broaden their horizon. This is because of the ever-growing demand for indepth understanding of specific subjects, which is inevitably associated with the exponential development of science and technology. For instance, university pupils might find it challenging searching for specialized information given the only available source being library books abd common websites. Therefore, academically qualified knowlege from institutions will come in handy. Secondly, the fact that information is omnipresent also benefit reseachers and scientists. To be specific, surveys conducted on citizens or other science - related activities should aim to assist people and the society, which is why a reliable data base should be widely accessible.

Opponent of the aforementioned statement might believe differently. To begin with, strictly controlled information prevents readers from becoming overwhelmed and misled. For example, given the demand for vaccines and remedy during pandemics, fraudulent news may distract people with untested results of drugs from medical institutions, posing unpredictable threats. Moreover, authorities' endeavor to provide citizens with selective and exact information is a sign of successful collaboration, communication and mutual trust.

To conclude, I strongly believe that people should be given access to a comprehensive yet profound and sufficient information resource.