19. Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 建议Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation an

Essay topics:

19. Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 建议
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.

The speaker asserts that governments should prioritize the immediate problems and put the anticipated problems of future at second place. I partly agree with the speaker that governments should resolve the immediate problems at first. However, the anticipated problems of future should be given the same priority.

Admittedly, some immediate problems are so severe that cannot bear any time lags. Through solving immediate problems governments can make some clear and warranted political achievements that can earn them supports and respects from people. For example, cleaning deteriorated riverbed can ameliorate the image of public space. Shutting down immediately the heavy industries can reduce cities PM value and render cities a green image. Constructing more highways can resolve everyday’ s traffic jam. Building more apartments can mitigate the high price of estates. Deteriorated living space, polluted air, inefficient traffic network and the high price of living are immediate problems that relate directly to the public’s well-being. Surely, it is the government’s responsibility to save these problems high on their agenda.

However, solving these immediate problems of today do not necessarily preclude governments from finding solution for the anticipated problems of future. By giving today’s problem and tomorrow’s problems equal priority and solving them together, governments can save valuable times and moneys. In contrast, focusing only on the immediate problems and ignoring future problems is unwise and counterproductive.

Solving today’s problem in consideration of tomorrow’s problem can give governments a bigger image. After seeing whole picture, governments can elaborate a long-term plan to totally eradicate the problems of today and tomorrow. Taking Bordeaux Metropolitan as an example. In order to retreat the polluted river, Bordeaux government does not limit their eyes in the river itself. They link the current pollution problems with the anticipated problems brought by Global warming and the rise of sea level. Through connecting these problems, the government released a plan of Natural Cure. This plan transforms a polluted river into a marine animal preservation. Compared with the traditional cleaning plan that uses chemical products, this plan requests only physical cleaning which is cleaner and more ecofriendly. Furthermore, this area designed as a sponge responds positively to the arise of sea-level. Anticipating the future’s urban issue helps Bordeaux government to elaborate a single plan that resolving two questions at one time, at low-cost with more benefits.

Focusing only on today’s immediate problem and ignoring future’s anticipated problems bring harmful effects. First, resolution to only the immediate problem carries the risk of being palliative and not curative. “Ghost Cities” adequately illustrate this point. Local governments failed to associate the immediate problem of housing shortage with the hidden threat of environmental problems. New buildings were born at the expense of nature. After having been settled down for several years, new residents moved out to other cities because of flooding and sandstorm. Thus, the whole city turned to a ghost city. All efforts that local government made, in terms of time, money and human force, are in vain.

Second, government’s focus only on immediate problems will give scholars a wrong signal that the government cares only about research producing practical and immediate benefits. This wrong signal frustrates deeply scholars who study into the very cutting-edge technologies. However, these cutting-edge technologies, which may not bring benefits right now, may resolve the problem totally. Taking the technique of terraforming as an example. Although terraforming cannot resolve the diverse urban issue, this technique can make these urban issues obsolete by building new cities in other planets. Thus, by looking for immediate solutions for the pressing problems governments may miss other creative and efficient solutions.

In conclusion, governments should begin to resolve the pressing problems immediately. However, they should not ignore the anticipated problems of future. For that, combining two types of problems together provides better solution at lower costs with more benefits. In contrast, ignoring the future problems risks of wasting resources and indirectly affects the corresponding research into possible solutions.

Votes
Average: 6.6 (1 vote)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2019-08-21 fufu 66 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user fufu :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 891, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...gned as a sponge responds positively to the arise of sea-level. Anticipating the future&a...
^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, look, may, second, so, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, in contrast

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.5258426966 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 58.6224719101 131% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3888.0 2235.4752809 174% => OK
No of words: 655.0 442.535393258 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.9358778626 5.05705443957 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05894927669 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07040551267 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 327.0 215.323595506 152% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499236641221 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 1193.4 704.065955056 170% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 42.0 20.2370786517 208% => Too many sentences.
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.5188812097 60.3974514979 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5714285714 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5952380952 23.4991977007 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.45238095238 5.21951772744 47% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 24.0 5.13820224719 467% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.309295450716 0.243740707755 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0825190575744 0.0831039109588 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0753999221112 0.0758088955206 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188072211994 0.150359130593 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.064930411746 0.0667264976115 97% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.88 12.1639044944 139% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 190.0 100.480337079 189% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.