The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens health.
Do you agree or disagree?
Some people argue that more financial resource should be allocated to medical research rather than to the protection of the environment. I'm in a full opposition to the argument.
On the one hand, it is true that investing resource in medical research directly and obviously contributes to the overall improvement of population's health. It allows people to have better knowledge on potential diseases and come up with relevant preventive measures, therefore, significantly reduces the mortality rate. Conducting quality medical research should be encouraged and funded in order to develop cures and precise diagnosis for diseases. Throughout history, if it had not been for medical researches, humankind must have faced and still struggled to combat numerous of diseases that could possibly cripple the well-being of human.
On the other hand, spending money on preserving and protecting the environment has significant impacts on human health in the long run. Healthy population requires a healthy living environment; we cannot be healthy when our habitat is severely polluted. It is evident that a vast number of fatal diseases are associated with the deterioration of the environment such as asthma and cancer. They are the result of the constant overexposure to air pollution and contaminated food-chain. Henceforth, protecting the environment, preventing it from being deteriorated and altered is the earliest preventive measure to ensure a healthy society.
In conclusion, the government should not be in favor of either medical research or preserving the environment. To enhance the average citizen's heath, an equal effort to better the quality of medical research and ensure the well-being of the nature is sensible move for all governments.
There is no mention of environmental protection in the task. Your answer and the task you posted do not match.
Prompt says The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens health
but you paraphrazed this as Some people argue that more financial resource should be allocated to medical research rather than to the protection of the environment
and then proceeded with adiing the environmental topic in your essay.
At least to me, each paragraph separately looks great and convincing, but when combined in one essay they do not make much sense as the essay do not answer the given task.
Oops! i'm sorry, my bad!!
Here is the full prompt:
The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens' health rather than on protecting the environment.
Do you agree or disagree?
And do you know how can i edit my thread? I'm new to this page so i'm not familiar with the layout
Holt Educational Consultant - / 10,876 3553
Posting the wrong prompt isn't something you should apologize for. It happens all the time here. Just remember that with every task 2 essay, you need to post the complete prompt along with it. For the task 1 essay, always include the image. Then I, as the contributor will give you the correct, most appropriate, and useful advice you can get at this forum.
You can edit your thread within a limited amount of time. So you have to make sure that you post the correct essay the first time. Otherwise, you just might miss out on the editing time allowance. The edit button is found next to your name in the posted version of your work. Anyway, on to the review of your work.
Your response is short by one sentence in terms of paragraph sentence requirements. You should have presented the minimum 3 sentences that covers:
- The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens' health
- rather than on protecting the environment.
- I'm in a full opposition to the argument.
Your prompt restatement actually omits most of the important information from the original prompt. It should have read something like the following instead:
There is a question as to how the bureaucracy allocates finances. Some sectors believe that more fiduciary considerations should be given to medicinal studies to insulate people from illnesses. Others would prefer that the same cost be used to preserve our habitats. I am opposed to the suggestion that scientific health research should be given financial priority.
You have to completely restate the original prompt by changing the whole presentation, but preserving the key idea behind the topic, reason, and your response. Change the keywords in the essay the same way I did here. Show the range of your vocabulary through alternative word usage. Your original response to the prompt is unclear. Since there are 2 discussion topics, you need to spell it out in the response presentation. Say which of the two sides you disagree with.
Now, this is a single point of view essay. That means, you need to take the 2 discussion topics and prove why your point of view, the opposing one, is the correct one. Both your reasoning paragraphs must focus on debunking the belief that the government should spend more money on medical research. Your second paragraph is actually an excellent defensive paragraph for your stance. However, the comparative first paragraph is not. Had you used the second paragraph first and then built the second paragraph on a further explanation of the points you made in the previous paragraph, your essay would have been properly explained and clearly developed in the eyes of the examiner.
At the moment, you took a stand in your response, but failed to prove that you have the explanations to back up your claim. Mostly because you went from trying to prove your point (single opinion essay) to creating a compare and contrast essay. You have a question to respond to, you were not asked to present both points of view, so this is not a compare and contrast essay. It is only a single opinion defense essay. So your approach was incorrect. Your paragraphs are improperly developed and does not follow the indicated discussion pattern for the prompt.
Again, your opening statement was almost correct. You just forgot to represent all parts of the argument, which would mean that you rushed through the writing of the essay. Always double check your written work against the original prompt. Make sure you represent all the requirements of the discussion instruction. You went from having a stance, to not having a stance within the 2 reasoning paragraphs. Which means you really did not have an opinion to start with. You failed to well represent your response to the question, that sudden indecision will cost you as the essay may not achieve a passing score.
I think you are off-topic. This is an opinion essay, not a discussion essay. It means that you have to take one side and defend it. What you did in this essay was you said you disagree with the idea of spending more money on medical research than on protecting the environment but then you list down the reasons why the government should spend money on medical research. I think you should leave that idea out and just focus on presenting the reasons why the government should spend money on protecting the environment.
You can edit your post but only in a limited time after you post it. There is an icon Edit on your post but it will only exist for a short time. After that you cannot edit your post.
I appreciate your style of paraphrasing.
Thank you for really detailed feedback.
It'd be better if I remove my first paragraph and develop another point to support my opposition.
Your Paraphrasing is Good but you are off the topic You should have sticked in your topic rather than discussion.