Hi, thanks for your lovely advice on my clumsy writing. I really appreciate that you take the time to help me.
Task 2: 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?
Some people argue that the promotion of a healthy lifestyle is what public money should be spent on, not the treatment for people who are already ill. I completely disagree with this statement, as from my perspective, public funds allocated to treat sick people can achieve a greater impact.
First and foremost, not spending on encouraging people to pursue a healthier way to live does not necessarily shorten their lives, but not spending on curing illnesses does. Investing in persuading people to change their behaviors is an uncertain bet. After all, things all come down to individuals' choices. However, the same level of financial support can make a difference in life and death by making sure one person can undergo the right treatment on time. For example, a 12-year-old me would not have survived a deadly car accident without the help from public insurance covering 80% of the cost of my operation. It is because, at that point, my family struggled just to make ends meet, let alone paying a 10000$ medical bill.
Secondly, the greater impact can be observed not only on individuals' scale but also on society as a whole. Public support in the health sector benefits people at the bottom of the pyramid as well as people with low to middle income. These people are the majority who contribute the most to the creation of society’s fortune. The lack of financial support which prevents them from being cured restrain their productivity as an individual. This, in turn, harms society’s productivity. The consequences here are much more severe.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that allocating public money on treatment for people in need is much more important than advocating a healthy style of living that might protect them from diseases.
Some people argue that the promotion of a healthy lifestyle is what public money should be spent on, not the treatment for people who are already ill. I completely disagree with this statement, as from my perspective, public funds allocated to treat sick people can achieve a greater impact.
First and foremost, not spending on encouraging people to pursue a healthier way to live does not necessarily shorten their lives, but not spending on curing illnesses does. Investing in persuading people to change their behaviors is an uncertain bet. After all, things all come down to individuals' choices. However, the same level of financial support can make a difference in life and death by making sure one person can undergo the right treatment on time. For example, a 12-year-old me would not have survived a deadly car accident without the help from public insurance which covered covering 80% of the cost of my operation. It is because, at that point, my family struggled just to make ends meet, let alone paying a 10000$ medical bill.
Secondly, Second, the greater impact can be observed not only on the scale of individuals' scale but also on society as a whole. Public support in the health sector benefits the poorest people at the bottom of the pyramid as well as people with low to middle income. These people are the majority who contribute the most to the nation's economy. creation of society’s fortune. The lack of financial support which prevents them from being cured of a serious illness restrain (wrong verb form) their productivity as an individuals. This, in turn, harms society’s the overall / aggregate productivity. The consequences here are much more severe.
In conclusion, I strongly believe that allocating public money on treatment for people in need is much more important than advocating a healthy style of living that might protect them from diseases.
Hi, thanks for your help.
I made some changes to my work according to your suggestions, however, there are some points that I still feel confused about. I would really appreciate it if you could explain further to me.
For example, a 12-year-old me would not have survived a deadly car accident without the help from public insurance covering 80% of the cost of my operation.
You suggested that I should drop the word "deadly" and change "covering" into that covered. May I ask why?
Have a good day.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
NgTh. HgDdeadly car accident
That implies that you died in it. Deadly means fatal.
NgTh. HgDinsurance covering 80%
from public insurance which covered covering 80% of the cost of my operation
You need a full clause because it was a one-time event that occurred in the past. If it is a general description, you can use a reduced clause with a present participle. For example:
Insurance covering losses due to theft or burglary is not very expensive.
Hi, thanks for your explanation. In the second issue, does it mean that if I want to mention a specific event, I need a full clause while if I want to mention a general description, I can use a reduced clause with a present participle?
NgTh. HgDthat if I want to mention a specific event, I need a full clause
Not necessarily.
The house built in 1874 is still standing but all the others, more recently built, collapsed in the earthquake.
Passive constructions often use reduced clauses.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.