Some people think it is more important for government to spend public money on promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illness than to spend it on the treatment of people who are already ill.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is indisputable that health problems are one of the biggest concerns of the World Health Organization. While people argue that the local and national authorities should exceed investment in promoting a healthy lifestyle to detect diseases rather than the treatment of people who are suffering from illness.
On the one hand, allocating money for encouraging a healthy lifestyle is a worldwide initiative for some reasons. There is an increased propensity for people to be caught up in the pressure of work and study as a result of neglecting their health. Due to their hectic schedule, they tend to hunch over the screen, coupled with keeping the same sitting posture which is the optimal cause of many life-threatening conditions such as obesity and eye-related diseases,...Therefore, it is extremely pivotal for government to invest money in opening more affordable leisure and sports centres, encouraging people through health awareness campaigns which could raise the general level of public health.
On the other hand, despite the above mentioned ideas, I believe that the local authorities should prioritize expenditure on patient treatment. An unhealthy lifestyle is not only the rationale for becoming under the weather, the contaminated drinking water or poor sanitation is also detrimental to health. Moreover, failure to subsidize medicines or to invest in hospitals would certainly lead to many deaths which could have been avoided by timely treatment. Hospitals, for instance, serve a crucial function not only in surgery but also conducting vital research into the treatment of many serious diseases, such as cancer or virus corona.
In conclusion, while promoting healthy living is important, treatment must have priority in health service spending.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 13,397 4385
The examiner will read the discussion instruction and read the provided essay. He will immediately discover that the writer has not followed the writing guideliness for the essay once he compares the opening paragraph with the original prompt. There is no reference to the WHO in the original so there was no need to use that as the basis of the restatement. He also did not provide the correct measured response as indicated by the writing instructions. These errors created an overall mistake in the original prompt representation. The fact that the required response format was not followed either, means the writer approached this essay with an overall prompt deviation. As such, the accuracy score of this essay will immediately be a failing score. The actual number of the score is unimportant at this point. All the writer needs to know is that the essay will not get a passing grade at the end of the assessment process. All because he proved that he cannot understand English instructions and he does not know how to follow writing instructions provided in English.
Indeed a well argument was presented by the writer. The point was well taken to measure the expenses. Writer can add "By deducting expenses from other sorts of fun and enjoyment, it is essential to invest in healthy life style and keeping accessible treatment from deadly ailments"
Where is your opinion in the introduction? it's so vague that the examiners can understand whether you agree or disagree with the viewpoint.
While people argue that (...) This is a sentence fragment. To be grammatically correct, you must add another clause that contrasts the previous clause.
In addition to that, your opening lacks a thesis statement. According to the prompt, you have to state your opinion whether you agree or not, and to what extent. This helps clarify your claim, making it easier for readers to follow.