Writing Feedback / Is the help from government necessary ? [NEW]

It is true that people can solve most of their problems by themselves or with the help from their families, however, that does not mean that people can solve all kinds of problems easily and effectively. So I do think that the help from government is always necessary and important for us.

First and foremost, we must admit that there are some serious problems that cannot be solved just by individual. Only government can handle those kinds of issues, so the help from it is quiet necessary. For example, when a country is struck by a natural disaster such as the earthquake, only government can put the whole country back on its feet. The government can gather as many medical workers and aid workers as possible at once and send them to tend the survivors of the disaster. However, depending on our own strength, none of us could do this. Another example is that when facing pandemic virus such as the H1N1 flu, individuals are vulnerable if government takes nothing to prevent the epidemic situation.

Second, sometimes we need government to protect our legitimate rights. For instance, last year, my cousin was kidnapped on her way home. My uncle called the police as soon as he received the blackmail phone call. And the policemen immediately began their investigations, and finally rescue my cousin successfully without paying the kidnapper a cent. If my uncle had not got the help from government, he would have been intimidated into paying the ransom by the kidnapper's. When people are dealing with complicated dangerous problems, the help from government can not only prevent them from getting hurt from others, but also ensure social fairness and justice.

In addition, the help from government can relieve the burden of people and their families. Take the medical insurance policy as an example. Government sources account for part of the total national health care expenditures. And my neighbor is a beneficiary of the medical insurance. Last year, he had a car accident and had to have several surgeries to recover. The expensive operation might have almost used up all of his money. However, because of the medical insurance policy, most of his operation fee was paid by the government. That is to say that he only needed to afford a small part of the all expenditure. There is no doubt that with the help of government, people can solve the same problems more easily

Undoubtedly the help from government is often necessary. However, it doesn't mean that people could be totally dependent on government on everything. People should try to solve those minor daily or family cases by themselves or with the help from their families and seek help from the government to deal with complicated problems.

To sum up, people cannot solve all kinds of problems by themselves or with the help from their families, so the government's help is necessary. Government can not only solve those serious problems on a nationwide scale, but also protect our legitimate rights and relieve our burden

Writing Feedback / Should government support scientific researches even the researches have no practical [3]

Government always plays a major role in promoting scientific research, and there is much conjecture over whether government should sponsor scientific research regardless of its practicability. As far as I am concerned, though researches which can immediately solve problems need strong government's support, scientific research, even if there is no practical use, should also be supported by government.

First and foremost, scientific research, more often than not, have no practical use at first, while they may turn out to have huge potential in the end. So the governments should not narrow their sight only in applied science which can bring benefit immediate. Neither the discovery of X-ray nor the invention of Penicillin was considered valuable at the beginning, but both of them help humans a lot later. Another example is the electricity. No one had foreseen the tremendous improvement of human civilization it has brought about when scientists first started this program. Suppose the government had refused to support the research of electricity just because it was useless at that time, what the world we live in today would be like?

Second, lots of researches based on theories in fundamental subjects, such as physics, can hardly be used directly, so they were supposed to have no practical use at all. However, without advancement in these theoretical fields, how can other subjects that are based on them make great breakthroughs? Take Albert Einstein's renowned theory of Relativity as an example. It is true that this research contributed nothing to practical use-it cannot directly bring great conveniences or economic benefit to our daily life. However, it is a foundational pillar of modern science. Many brilliant inventions and discoveries were on the basis of Relativity. Without government's support, how could he purchase equipments to do his researches? As a result, neither Einstein could put forward his theory of relativity, nor there could be subsequent significant breakthroughs in the physics field or even the whole society.

In addition, government also needs to support studies in social science which are useless for practice as well. Researches in social science make people become aware of what the society is, know more about themselves, and better integrate into the environment we live in. For example, Jane Goodall spent her 45 years on studies of chimpanzee social and family interactions. Though research in chimpanzees can't bring about practical utility, it helps us form a comprehensive and correct understanding towards them. The discovery of tool-making among chimpanzees during Jane Goodall's study convinced scientists to reconsider the definition of being human, because tool-making was considered the defining difference between humans and other animals before. Undoubtedly, researches in social science reshape our perception of ourselves and our role as humans in the world.

In a nutshell, scientific researches, even if there is no practical use, may become the foundation of science, may reshape human understanding of the living world, and the potential value of these researches may be a necessary part of life in the future. So government should support scientific researches even the researches have no practical use now.

Writing Feedback / Should people follow their ambitious dreams and goals even they are not realistic? [NEW]

Everyone has dreams and goals in his or her mind. Different people choose different goals. Some of them prefer those ambitious dreams and goals, and others may choose to follow practical and achieving realistic goals. Personally, I would like to have more ambitious dreams and goals even they are not realistic.

First of all, ambitious dreams and goals can bring out the best in people. Just as the old saying goes, one's potential is endless. Challenging goals that are more difficult to realize can inspire people to keep working harder and give their best. Take The Wright Brothers as an example. The Wright Brothers used to spend a great deal of time observing birds in flight. And they had a dream of making a flying machine for human which was thought totally crazy by others. Over the next several years, they have designed a series of gliders and flew numerous test glides. In spite of all kinds of problems, the Wrights determined that they could fulfill their dream. Finally in 1904, they made the first airplane flight. If The Wright Brothers had more realistic and ordinary goals at that time, they would hardly achieve such success.

Moreover, following ambitious dreams can not only make personal progress but also prompt the development of the whole society. If Jules Verne had never written about space, air, or underwater travel, human could not soon have achieved air travel, invented practical submarines and devised practical means of space travel; If Martin Luther King had not dreamed of ending the racial segregation and discrimination, African-American would still live on a lonely island of poverty and discrimination, and civil rights in the United States and around the world would not be improved; If Bill Gates had not quitted from famous university and started his own enterprise, now we would not do our homework or even take examinations just through the computers. At first, all these ideas and goals were considered crazy and not realistic by most of people, but it is the ambitious and not realistic dreams open up a new era in different areas in our society.

On the other hand, both kinds of goals and dreams have advantages. It is true that people can easily gain more confidence when they focus on realistic goals and be less stressed. However, feeling too good about themselves may make those people satisfy with their current lives, and will never want to give up their secure lives. As a result, they will never make a breakthrough. Take my brother as an example. He does everything step by step following achieving realistic goals all the time, such as going to an ordinary university after high school graduation and finding a secure job at hometown when graduated from college. Every day he looks confident, but at the same time he loses the chance to feel a great sense of achievement forever.

All in all, challenging goals can not only motivate us to maximize our potential and attain more significant achievements, but also promote social progress. So I stick with the belief that focusing on ambitious goals would be a more beneficial choice.