Hi all,
Please help to correct grammatical errors and give feedback on the content of this essay. Thank you very much in advance!
Here is the prompt and the instructions:
Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Here is my essay:
A philosophy's assertion states that new problems always arise from the old ones as human attempts to solve conflicts within each problem. It implies that having anticipated problems in the future, it would be wiser to tackle present matters in order to mitigate their consequences. A look back at the world's efforts to solve immediate problems underlines the veracity of the statement.
Current Ebola disease is a clear example to emphasize the needs to address problems immediately. The deadly virus has caused large number of casualties and the WHO has alerted its danger at the worldwide scale. If the world is not tackling this problem seriously, the consequences will be limitless and severe. Obviously, human is still working to combat the increasingly forecast number of other lethal diseases like cancers. However, the urgency to qualify the Ebola outbreak certainly outweighs other future concerns.
Another case should be brought to discussion within this issue is the world's fighting against poverty. It has long been an arduous concern for governments to eradicate hunger and improve living standards. The United Nations even upholds the mission as one of The Millennium Goals. Undeniably, the efforts have been being carried out for decades, yet reports of food and shelter shortage come in relentlessly from every corner of the world. This is a solid evidence to challenge the governments' actions to tackle anticipated matters ineffectively.
Turn a glance at the ways that governments acted on the global financial crisis is another concrete proof supporting the statement. The U.S. government resolutely carried out the quantitative easing plan that lasted for many years, while the European Central Bank cut interest rates aggressively. These were determined actions that reversed the economic downturn. Should the matter have not been handled pressingly by that time, the world's economy might still struggle for positive growth in the presence. Once again, the case implies that serious actions to solve immediate problems are vital to restrain their forward consequences.
Inevitably, human always needs to solve problems to make significant developments, either now or in the future. However, governments should give priority to solve present matters, which pose great obstacles to the ongoing progress of development. The evidences presented above clearly support and strengthen the statement.
Regards,
D.
Please help to correct grammatical errors and give feedback on the content of this essay. Thank you very much in advance!
Here is the prompt and the instructions:
Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Here is my essay:
A philosophy's assertion states that new problems always arise from the old ones as human attempts to solve conflicts within each problem. It implies that having anticipated problems in the future, it would be wiser to tackle present matters in order to mitigate their consequences. A look back at the world's efforts to solve immediate problems underlines the veracity of the statement.
Current Ebola disease is a clear example to emphasize the needs to address problems immediately. The deadly virus has caused large number of casualties and the WHO has alerted its danger at the worldwide scale. If the world is not tackling this problem seriously, the consequences will be limitless and severe. Obviously, human is still working to combat the increasingly forecast number of other lethal diseases like cancers. However, the urgency to qualify the Ebola outbreak certainly outweighs other future concerns.
Another case should be brought to discussion within this issue is the world's fighting against poverty. It has long been an arduous concern for governments to eradicate hunger and improve living standards. The United Nations even upholds the mission as one of The Millennium Goals. Undeniably, the efforts have been being carried out for decades, yet reports of food and shelter shortage come in relentlessly from every corner of the world. This is a solid evidence to challenge the governments' actions to tackle anticipated matters ineffectively.
Turn a glance at the ways that governments acted on the global financial crisis is another concrete proof supporting the statement. The U.S. government resolutely carried out the quantitative easing plan that lasted for many years, while the European Central Bank cut interest rates aggressively. These were determined actions that reversed the economic downturn. Should the matter have not been handled pressingly by that time, the world's economy might still struggle for positive growth in the presence. Once again, the case implies that serious actions to solve immediate problems are vital to restrain their forward consequences.
Inevitably, human always needs to solve problems to make significant developments, either now or in the future. However, governments should give priority to solve present matters, which pose great obstacles to the ongoing progress of development. The evidences presented above clearly support and strengthen the statement.
Regards,
D.
