It is more important 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 disputed that the authorities should invest in the promotion of a more active lifestyle rather than investing the curement of the sick. I partly agree with this suggestion as both approaches have their own advantages and believe that the government funding should be harnessed to meet the need of both.
It is understandable why some people advocate to the view that government should subsidize for those who have illnesses. This stems from the fact that people have already contributed to their society through the tax system and one of the foremost functions of public fund is to take care of the well-being of people. It is thus reasonable that individuals can reap the medical assitance from the wellfare system when they are sick. More importantly, a civilized society is characterized by subsidized access to treatment of the vulnerable. By supporting the ill, especially those who are disadvantged, governments send a message to the public that all people can be assured abouth their health when they are sick, unemployed or retired. In this case, social solidarity can be demonstrated.
Conversely, promotion of healthy ways of life implies several merits for the public. This encourages the active living ways which counter the negative implications of ubiquitous sedentary lifestyle nowadays. Given the technological advances in recent years, people have a tendency to reduce their physical activities due to the working nature and entertainment, which demand workers sit and mantain their postures in longer period. Another benefit of the government funding active lifestyle is reflected in the social life of citizens. To motivate people do more exercises, governments often allocate the financial resources at its disposal to construct recreational areas, public places at with sport equipment installed. This supplies civilians with locations to socilize and expand their social circle, which give them a sense of communal life and fulfillment.
In sum, I am of the idea that public fund should be diverted in both healthy lifestle promotion and illness treament. While it is the responsibility of the government to safeguard their people from adversity, investment from public money in popularizing active lifestyle ameliorates the risks of modern life and strengthen the social solidarity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-02 | Afdalah Harris | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | vttphuong.d19 | 67 | view |
| 2023-06-15 | thadsha1999 | 56 | view |
| 2022-11-27 | tttttttttt | 61 | view |
| 2022-11-12 | Charles Le | 78 | view |
- The cost of flying has decreased significantly over the last decades This has made oversea travel much more accessible Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this trend 67
- University students should spend time on other activities instead of studying Agree disagree 89
- Today news plays an important role in people s lives and news media are more influential than ever before Why is it this case Is it positive or negative 56
- out Essay topics Forests are the lungs of the earth Destruction of the world s forests amounts to death of the world we currently know To what extent do you agree or disagree 11
- It is better to be unemployed in jobs rather than to be employed in jobs even if they don t feel happy or enjoy Do you agree or disagree 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 581, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...By supporting the ill, especially those who are disadvantged, governments send a messag...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, if, so, then, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 7.30460921844 192% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 41.998997996 117% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1964.0 1615.20841683 122% => OK
No of words: 361.0 315.596192385 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4404432133 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9978545286 2.80592935109 107% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.548476454294 0.561755894193 98% => OK
syllable_count: 619.2 506.74238477 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0557320173 49.4020404114 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.75 106.682146367 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5625 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 7.06120827912 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 3.4128256513 29% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17666747929 0.244688304435 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0576041936045 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.044399827136 0.0667982634062 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111331524975 0.151304729494 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0304410404048 0.056905535591 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.57 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 78.4519038076 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.