Writing Feedback / whether to allocate a huge of money for defense is right policy [4]

Topic: A country's first duty to its citizens is to protect them. Therefore, it is logical that defense should take up a significant proportion of the national budget. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

The matter whether the government should be invested a considerable amount of the national budget in defense remains controversial. Some people believe this policy brings a lot of benefits outweighed its drawbacks while others claim that the opposite is true. I am convinced by the latter view because of following reasons.

The first argument in favor of this policy is that big investment in defense can create some economic merits. While the government might gain significant profit from selling weapons to other countries, its citizens can devote all their energy to work and contribute to grow the economy. However, in my view, there would be a lot of disadvantages overshadowed advantages above if the policy were to come true. The first reason is that in order to receive amount of profit, the government have to invest a huge of capital in defense industry, leading to every small benefit in terms of rate of return and enormous sacrifice in other sectors, such as education. Another is that because of the shortage of capital allocated to developing economy, there are not enough jobs for people although they can work very effective in this secure environment.

The other point in support for this statement is strong defense brings political merits. Whereas the government might gain advantages in negotiation with other countries in case of occurring disputes, its citizens are protected from foreign threats. Nevertheless, I do believe this policy could causes greater downside in politic. The first is that it is so difficult to maintain these advantages, especially in long-term because other countries also spend the same or even greater money on strengthening their defense. Other argument is that whether its citizens are saved from threats abroad when its investment in defense can cause an arms race in region and bad relationship with the neighboring nations.

To conclude, I contend that big investment in defense isn't the good way of spending national budget. This policy doesn't bring high profit and isn't a smart measure to protect its citizens.

Writing Feedback / people with original ideas are of much greater respect than followers? [NEW]

People who have original ideas are of much greater value to society than those who are simply able to copy the ideas of others well. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Ideas are raw materials from which great inventions came out into society and change the world. Some people believe that only people giving birth to first ideas deserve greater respect and acknowledgement of society while others claim that people should be respect equally no matter who people are pioneers or followers. My essay will analyze both views' value.

Firstly, advocates of the idea that innovators are the most admired people believe these people have sacrificed the biggest time, effort and money to realize their lofty dreams. A stark example is Galileo who was against theology and conservative viewpoints of Church in effort to protect the undeniable fact that the Earth revolves the Sun. Nonetheless, first ideas are not always feasible and sometimes mere theory like crude pearls. It is thanks to followers' creation and intelligence that these ideas come true, and even they are brave people who popularize valuable items to all citizens, especially the poor, while pioneers or companies possess exclusive right to their ideas are ready to sell their products at exorbitant prices due to profit. Therefore, while innovators deserve respect because of their revolutionary ideas, followers also play no less important role in inheriting and developing original ones.

The second is proponents believe people with first initiatives built the foundation of a society with no less creative ideas given birth and became the teachers inspired to next generations. It is undeniable that everyone owns desires burst into flames that one day in the future we join in the army of initial soldiers. The first existence of technological inventions in Silicon Valley became a gunshot triggering a series of relentless competitions among big corporations with hope for being voted as the father of one item. Opponents have their points when they prove that not all first ideas are real first. For example, Thomas Edison's light bulb invention, in fact, is the result of series of predecessor physicists' achievements. Objectively, the human's development is a process of endless evolution in which the line between the first and the final seems to not exist. The effort to distinguish this is as difficult as the attempt to find out the answer to the chicken and egg question. Moreover, when referring to the countries like China, Japan which are known as great copy-cats, we can't low assess the role of followers. These nations have become the economic leading states and bring tremendous benefit to our world although industrial revolutions were not begun there. For above reasons, pioneers and followers are regarded equally as people who establish foundation and inspiration for society's development.

To conclude, both pioneers and followers deserve equal appreciation. While pioneers with their great sacrifice bring new ideas to the world, followers with no less effort enable us to gain highest benefit from these ideas.

Writing Feedback / The mass media: TV, radio and newspapers, have great influence on people's ideas [5]

Topic: The mass media, including television, radio and newspapers, have great influence in shaping people's ideas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

The issue whether the mass media, including television, radio and newspapers affects people's thinking is under discussion. Some people believe that they have a considerable effect on people while others claim that the opposite is true. I am convinced by the former view for following reasons. (the former view means the view of proponents)

Firstly, the mass media is to expand our understanding about environment. There are a huge number of environmental programs on television every week which provides numerous viewers with explanation of what environment is and how important it is. Earth Talk Today program is an example which enables us to expand our knowledge about hot environmental issues by interviewing experts. Without these programs, hardly may citizens comprehend the reasons why we have to protect the air, water and land on the Earth.

Another argument is that television, radio and newspapers intensify our knowledge about social issues and have significant influence on our attitude towards these problems. Every day there are several events broadcasted and analyzed on television and radio. Regardless of what the truth is, our view counts on information the mass media provides. For example, when financial crisis happens, almost only bad news is reported by the mass media while good news is ignored, causing people to be more pessimistic than necessary. Moreover, most of us contend whether a social event is good or not, which depends substantially on what experts analyze in the media. For instance, when the government reduces tariff rates, we might feel it bad. However, after watching economic programs in which economist show this policy brings benefits outweigh drawbacks, we are highly possible to change our mind.

In short, the mass media, including television, radio and newspapers has a big impact on our thought, cultivating our knowledge about the world, life, social issues and orienting our attitude towards them.