Writing Feedback / 4. A government's role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure [2]

4. A government's role is only to provide defense capability and urban infrastructure (road, water supplies...). All other services (education, health, social security) should be provided by private groups or individuals in the community. To what extent do you agree or disagree? (Insearch prepare for Ielts

happy to see all of you who comment my essay. thank so much.

The division of responsibility of government and private groups or individuals in the community is controversial. Some people claim that defense and urban infrastructures are the mere duty of government and all other services should be the task of private groups or individuals. However, others are of the belief of opposing idea. I totally agree with the latter view.

First of all, it is argued that government is the unique organization which has authority of defense capacity and infrastructures. It is likely that the security of a nation is crucial, and if regulated by companies, the top secrete can be revealed and the destiny of a country can be put in jeopardy. However, it is undeniable that hardly can the transparency be achieved if only government is totally responsible for defense issue. In addition, Proponents also believe that infrastructures such as road, water supplies require a huge amount of investment; therefore, private groups or individuals can little afford or achieve the common standard. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that despite government's efforts, it takes ages for them to complete the construction of a big road in a place, let alone to industrialize the whole nation. Vietnam is a typical example of a country in which government is stagnating in upgrading infrastructure. In other words, the intervention of private groups especially funding is indispensable to quicken the process of renovating the infrastructures.

Second, it is thought that health, education and social security are of personal choice. It is partly true that on the basic of individual demand, some might want to pursuit highest educations whereas others are satisfied with only university degree. With people having high income, regular check-ups is important to them, yet is unnecessary to others who suffer the lower income. However, to develop a country each person should be granted to equitable chance of education and health. With citizens having knowledge and strong heath, a nation can enjoy high quality labor. Furthermore, by no means can all enjoy these services in case that private organizations are purely in charge. The fact is that for the sake of profit, education could be commercialized and health insurance becomes too costly for people. That explains why until now those exists prevalently the mushrooming of public schools and free public health insurance in many countries. Put it simply, nowhere can a nation's labor force quality be high as well without government taking care of other services, say, education and health insurance.

To sum up, it is by dint of the responsibility of government and private groups or individuals in all fields, including defense, urban infrastructures and other services that a nation can enjoy the sustainable development with defense achieving transparency, infrastructures gaining the renovation and nation receiving high skilled labor force.

Writing Feedback / Should the main purpose of schools be to teach to become useful workers / tax payers? [3]

some people think that the main purpose of schools is to teach children become useful citizens and workers, rather than benefiting them as individuals. Agree or disagree?

please edit my essay! thanks a lot!

The mission of education children is far from easy. Some people believe that the inculcation of ethical lessons in children to become useful citizens is necessary while others claim that each individual should learn to benefit himself first at school. I partly agree with the latter view for the following reasons.

First, it is argued that the priority of education of the youngsters towards their needs is psychologically conducive to their learning. It is likely that with no restriction which entails them to follow the moral codes of the society, they feel relaxed and study efficaciously. Is it true? Can a class achieve its high effectiveness when each individual because of putting their needs over others, for instance, goes to class late or forget to do home work.Only in a disciplined environment which emphasizes their obedience of the community codes can they learn the lessons to get along with others and be more confident in the future.

The second reason in support of the individualism in education at school is to encourage them to find out their inner desire. It is undeniable that not being affected by the herd voice can they discover what truly want and come up with the revolutionary inventions to change the world like the case of Thomas Edison. However, under no circumstance can they gain the support when they are only to serve the creators or some minorities. Facts have shown that the success roots from the community purpose that is to enhance the quality of live for all. Another point is that if the individualism was worshiped, for the sake of profit, youngsters would be businessmen without ethic or monopoly would take shape, leading to the prevalence of low quality products. Moreover, if it comes to the global issues, says, environment, epidemics and political conflicts can the individuals who only benefit themselves play a part?

All things considered, the purpose of education should harmonize between individual and community to produce useful citizens who follow moral norms, and at the same time, pursue their own interest to add more color to their world.

Writing Feedback / Firm discipline is a necessary part of teaching children. [4]

Dear everyone! I love to see your edit to correct my essay! Thanks a lot! s2!

Education for children is a not simple task. Some people argue that firm discipline is effective to shape good behaviors in children while others claim that this methodology can have disaster effects on children's growth. I totally agree with the former idea.

First, it is believed that the existence of firm discipline can have negative impacts on children's growth. It is partly true that this methodology may stifle children's creativity and make them suffer inferiority complex. However, it is undeniable that no sooner have children studied the lessons of punishment than they can deeply remember their mistake, learn useful habits like punctuality and obedience, which enables them to have abilities to self control, self respect and empathy others. Moreover, there goes a saying "rule is learned to be broken" which means that only by following the rule can children learn its limitations and then creatively break it. In a word, strict penalty inculcate in kid's habits of following moral norms.

Second, opponents claim that children, due to strict punishment, are susceptible to evils in society. It is possible that children can feel no one understands and sympathies them in the sensitive period of time, which worsens the relationship between parents and children, widens the generation gap and makes them be vulnerable to evils. Nevertheless, in my perspective, it is irrefutable that in this case, children do need their parents' decisive and in time impacts to help them stay away from evils in society. Equally important, for teachers, no where can they manage their classes more effectively than in strict discipline. In addition, facts have shown that these countries, like Japan and Korea, where firm discipline has applied thoroughly have the highest numbers of self-awareness citizens and the lowest crime-rate. Put it simply, it is by virtue of firm discipline that children avoid social evils and people build foundation for a law-based society.

In conclusion, I strongly agree with the implementation of firm discipline in teaching kids by virtue of their significant benefits with children's good behaviors cultivated, happy families preserved and wealthy society founded.