TOPIC-
Tobacco, mainly in the form of cigarettes, is one of the most widely used drugs in the world. over a billion adults legally smoke tobacco every day. The long term health costs are high- for smokers themselves, and for the wider community in terms of health care costs and lost productivity .
Do governments have a legitimate role to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own decisions to smoke, or are such decisions up to the individual?
MY RESPONSE-
It is debatable if government should create laws to prohibit smoking. On one hand where such laws can be beneficial for citizens but at same time they are invasion of individual rights too. This essay will firstly examine the benefits of making such laws followed by discussion of disadvantages before arriving at a reasoned conclusion.
The are mainly two advantages of having a ban on tobacco and its products. One is that the government will not have to spend money on health care costs associated with diseases linked to excessive smoking. It is well established fact that smoking leads to a variety of diseases and makes people unfit. Other advantage is that healthy citizens are useful asset to a country as they can be productive and earn enough to support themselves, their families and others in need.
Having considered the advantages, it is equally important to examine the disadvantages associated with having such laws. Firstly, such a law is invasion of individual rights. A democratic government gets elected to safeguard the rights of its people and such a law can prove very unpopular. Secondly, the governments usually earn a lot of money by taxing tobacco products heavily. By banning these altogether, government will lose a significant source of revenue.
In my opinion, government can make policies to encourage people to give up smoking. For instance, there is a ban on smoking in public places in India. I disagree that a government should put a blanket ban on tobacco products as it will not be correct both economically and democratically.
You have some great points, but this is our short paragraphs of information. Of course it did the job of informing and it is written well with decent flow, but is what are the length requirements?
It is debatable if government should create laws to prohibit smoking. On one hand where such laws can be beneficial forto its citizens but at same time theyit can be treated as an invasion of individual rights too . This essay will firstly examine the benefits of making such laws followed by some discussion of on the disadvantages of Tobacco before arriving at a reasoned conclusion.
TheThere are mainlytwo main advantages of having a ban on tobacco and its products. One is that theFirstly , the government will not do not need have to spend money on extra health care costs associated with diseases linked to excessive smoking . For example , excessive smoking will lead to diseases such as lung cancer . It is well established fact that smoking leads to a variety of diseases and makes people unfit.Tobacco has also been proven by Scientist that it makes people unfit due to the diseases it cause to human body . Other advantage is that healthy citizens are useful asset to a country as they can be productive and earn enough to support themselves, their families and others in need.
Having considered the advantages, it is equally important to examine the disadvantages associated with having such laws. Firstly, such a law is an invasion of individual rights. A democratic government gets elected to safeguard the rights of its people and such a law can prove very unpopular over times . Secondly, the governments usually earn a lot of money by taxing tobacco products heavily . By banning these altogetherTobacco in the country ,the government will lose a huge significant source of revenue.
In my opinion, government can make policies to encourage people to give up on smoking. For instance, there is a ban on smoking in public places in IndiaSmoking in pubic places in India is banned by the government . However , I feel thatI disagreeathe government should put a blanket ban on tobacco products as it will not be correct both economically and democratically.
Rohit, there is a problem with your introduction or first paragraph. Not only is it too short because it does not follow the minimum 3 sentence requirement, but it also does not present the correct restated prompt in it. You had already began to present the correct thesis statement when you said "It is debatable if government should create laws to prohibit smoking". From that point, you should have merely summarized the rest of the original prompt in order to complete the introduction. You should have also taken a stand at the end of the essay as to whether you support that the government legislate the laws about tobacco use or if it should be left up to the individual. The essay is asking you to pick a side and defend it in the essay. It is not asking you to merely provide information that can help the reader make a decision. This is not about what the reader thinks is right, this is about what you believe to be right.
The exercise in this essay is all about developing your line of reasoning and logic. It is asking you to analyze the known facts of an issue and then come to your own conclusion by presenting it in a strong manner to the reader. That is the objective of this essay which you failed to do. It may be a debatable topic but surely you have a strong opinion on the matter that you wish to defend and it should have been stated in the introduction of the essay. That first paragraph is very important in your exam scoring, so make sure that you accomplish all of the expected parameters by the end of it in the proper manner.
Due to the mistaken prompt that you provided, I think you did not clearly understand the prompt requirements, which is why you made that mistake in your discussion, you ended up discussing a totally different topic in your response. Your answer should have only been limited to whether you believe that "...governments have a legitimate role to legislate to protect citizens from the harmful effects of their own decisions to smoke, or are such decisions up to the individual?" If you review your 2 paragraph response, you will see that you did not provide any relevant responses to the questions posed.
There are actually some parts of the essay where you were almost properly responding to the prompt. Instances such as when you said,"such a law is invasion of individual rights. A democratic government gets elected to safeguard the rights of its people and such a law can prove very unpopular., already started you on the right response path to the prompt. I wish you had continued to simply argue this line of reasoning within the essay. Your paragraph before this one really did not apply to the prompt at all and should not have been in the essay.
It was not until the very end of your essay when you finally took a stand and gave a highly simple explanation as to why you believe the government should create laws to ban smoking. Then you fell apart again and stated that you did not agree that the government should not put a blanket ban on tobacco products. That was not even part of the question you were being asked to respond to.
Due to the existing problems with your essay in terms of responding to the prompt, I am sorry to say that there is no way this prompt would have passed in an actual test. There is an obvious lack of comprehension skills on your part when it comes to trying to understand what the question is asking and how it should be responded to. As a practice test, it is a failure. However, I am sure that with continued practice, guidance, and assistance from your teacher, classmates, and the members of this forum, you will improve your scores in no time :-)
I like the organization of your essay, so clear and easy to follow. However, I find two questions regarding your essay. First, when you say that the ban would violate individuals' rights, I didn't see what rights are and why the ban would a violation. Being more specific should help a little I think. Second, as to the opening sentence of the third paragraph,Having considered the advantages, it is equally important to examine the disadvantages associated with having such laws. , I would suggest to substitute it with a much more direct one. What the sentence is saying is just something obvious and serves only as a introduction. Instead, if people can learn right away the point of the paragraph from your first sentence, it might have been better.
@Vangiespan, Thanks for your feedback. I considered it as argumentative type essay where we need to present both sides of argument before arriving at conclusion. And so, the 1st body paragraph considered advantages, 2nd considered disadvantages and finally in the end, based on arguments provided, I concluded that the govt can legislate to some degree but should not place a blanket ban.
Do you believe, the correct approach here is to straightaway choose one side in introduction and then in main body just explain the reasons for choosing that and completely ignore the other side?
@TakeitEasy, Thanks for reviewing. Regarding ur first point, I agree that I should have elaborated how it is invasion of personal rights. Regarding 2nd point, That particular line served as signposting sentence to make transitioning between paragraphs smooth. library.dmu.ac.uk/Support/Heat/?page=486
Hi Rohit :-) Listen, when an essay prompt wants to do discuss the advantage and disadvantage of a topic, it will say so clearly in the essay prompt. After that, the prompt will ask you if you agree or disagree with the statement and to what extent. In this particular essay, you were asked if you thought the government had the power to legislate anti tobacco laws or if the individual should be allowed to make that decision. As you can see, you were not asked if you agreed or disagreed with the statement. You were just asked to pick a side and discuss it.
You could actually have just turned the essay around as you wrote it and placed your agreement that the government should legislate the laws at the beginning of the essay. If you did that first, you could have then justified your reasons using some or most of the information you provided in support of the tobacco ban. Any opposition you have to the government legislation side could have been presented as the "other side" of the issue that you don't really believe in, but need to consider because of other people's opinions.
Sometimes the effectiveness of a discussion relies more on the way you format the essay, rather than whether or not the side you pick is the right one. There is no right side in discussions such as these, only your personal opinions. That is what this essay expected to hear and that is what you partially delivered to the reader :-)
Thanks vangiespan, that explains a lot. So the content was more or less okay. But I shd have presented it as arguments supporting one side and other side instead of advantage/disadvantage.
One question I have is that in my conclusion, I partially chose both sides by saying that govt can make some laws which discourage ppl from smoking but it shdnt be completely banned and final decision shd still be left to individuals.
Is that okay or I have to choose one side completely as asked in question?
Hi Rohit, in answer to your question, my belief / opinion is that you should have chosen a clear side to defend in the essay. In case you did not notice, the essay prompt never asked you for agreement or disagreement to a certain extent. If the prompt had done so, then you would have been right to take only partial sides on the issue and then allowed the reader to decide for himself based upon the evidence you presented.
You have to remember that in these essays, the method of discussion is always made clear by the prompt. It tells you if you have room to allow for an undecided opinion, partial opinions, or strong support of a single opinion. There are actually some keywords that you can look out for which will clue you in on how to discuss the issue. Some the keywords are:
To what extent... ( partial sides may be taken)
Do you agree or disagree... ( one side must be supported with relevant evidence from personal experience or common knowledge)
Discuss both sides (allows you to either pick a side or leave the final decision up to the reader)
Explain why you believe (means to pick one side and support it)
Do you believe (means you need to discuss only your belief on the matter and use evidence to support it)
Those are some of the keywords that I can remember at the moment. I am sure there are more but those escape me right now :-)
