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.
Hi! So I'll just jump in...
"It implies that having anticipated problems in the future, it would be wiser to tackle present matters in order to mitigate their consequences."
-Who is the "it" in this statement, be more specific because I was confused.
-Remove that coma, its not needed but not necessarily an error.
-Again who is "it"?
"The deadly virus has caused large number of casualties and the WHO has alerted its"
-Who is "WHO?" put in parenthesis what it stands for because I thought you were saying "who" as a person.
Your grammar is very good actually...
I'm just concerned that you aren't fully answering the question...
Try to use and example from the past that still exists today, and if you did that and I didn't notice try to clear it up to make that point obvious.
The problem I see with your essay is that you are disagreeing with the statement without looking into the history of the issues you presented. If you do some research on the Ebola outbreak, you will see that your reasoning is flawed. The reason that the disease reached pandemic levels at present is because the African nations failed to respond to the dangers of the illness when it was discovered. There was also a lack of reaction on the part of the World Health Organization (WHO) since the organization disregarded the seriousness of the illness. That is why the illness, when the future became the present, ran out of control and the government and international organizations ended up scrambling to address the problem. What I am saying is this, it would be wise for you to argue the paper from both points of view. The one that says immediate problems today, with the assertion that they need to anticipate the future problems in order to properly address the issues that will continue to have a mothball effect on their government. I believe you can do this because you are supposed to discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement. Therefore, you have room to discuss both sides of the issue before concentrating on your personal opinion.
Thank you for your feedback!
I actually struggled to come up with some strong examples to back up my argument, and eventually chose these three because of time constraint. Honestly, I was not happy with my own reasoning when I proofread the essay (blame the time limit again). I should have thought more carefully though. Thanks again for pointing out why my reasoning is weak. I shall rewrite this essay with views taken from both sides.
Regards,
D.
Obviously, human is still working to combat the increasingly forecast number of other lethal diseases like cancers.
- Do you mean "humans are"
- you can say "man is still"
- forecast would make more sense as forecasted
- the sentence would flow better at the end if you just said "cancer" instead of "cancers"
