The advocates of international aid believe that countries have a moral obligation to help each other, whilst the opponents consider it unnecessary because money is misspent by the authorities receiving it. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
international aid is beneficient only for governments
Some people advocate international assistance in the belief that states are under a moral obligation to give aid to others. Yet it is deemed unnecessary by the opponents, who cite the reason that the authorities as recipients spend the money inappropriately. In this essay, I will discuss each point of view and proceed with my own opinion.
The supporters contend that we should help foreign countries out of suffering for the sake of humanitarianism. Their citizens are as much human beings as us, and based on this unalterable fact, we simply cannot stand aloof. If we turn our attention inwards, leaving them to struggle with their miserable lives, our conscience will be bitten. We are all to be overwhelmed with remorse when we look back at our cruelty and selfishness. Such an argument does have its merits, but it is also called into question by others.
They dispute the necessity of aid on the ground that our favor and kindness cannot extend to those who we are desperate to help. There are too many regimes that show callous indifference to the misery of their people. The only concern for them is to maintain their rule. Therefore they are certain to withhold oversea aid to support their agenda. As harsh as the claim sound, it is actually rational, and resonates with me.
I echo the statement, since it has unfortunately come true. We have a perfect example right here and right now - that is North Korea. The rogue state holds its wretched nationals as pawns to appeal to sympathy. Once succeeding, it will not do anything but commit its gains to the nuclear weapon programmes and ballistic missile development. At that time, we ourselves will be under the growing menace of the sinister ruler - Kim Jong-un.
The discussion I have provided points to the very conclusion that international aid is not necessary. It is disquietingly clear that the beneficiaries are not people in need but governments. More important, our generosity can be the bane of us ourselves.
This month, I have paid much mo attention to task 1 than task 2, so I tried to practice task 2 this time. I would more appreciate it if you score my essay.
332 words, 45 minutes: It seems that I have a better time management for task 2.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 14,835 
4783 Gang, you did an extremely good job in the prompt paraphrasing, but the overall discussion was faulty because you did not clearly identify that you were discussion public opinion A, public opinion B, then your personal opinion in the paragraph discussions. You also made a conclusion regarding the topic when you were not required to do so. The job of the task 2 essay is not to make a decision for the reader but rather, to inform the reader based on 3 aspects in order to allow the reader to come to his own conclusion. The concluding statement was just for the summarized discussion as I taught you before. I'll have to break down the various aspects of the essay at this point because you had some strong points and some weak points.
TA - 5 due to the lack of point of view representation and the improper format of the conclusion.
C&C - 7 because of the logical presentation and clear discussion progression
LR - 6 as some of your word choices are inappropriate for the discussion (e.g. stand aloof = be aloof, conscience will be bitten = conscience will be bothered, etc.)
GRA - 7 based on mistakes that caused some errors in grammar. However, it did not create confusion for the reader so it scored well.
Based on score averaging, your final outcome might be between a 5. 5 to a 7. I can't be sure of the actual score because the examiner may have some other concerns or considerations for your essay at this point that I am not privy to.
