Ielts Writing Task
In the budget of a country , some think that the large part of money should be invested in health education and preventative measures instead of spending on treatment. In my point of view , although developing health education and preventative measures are effective to improving the health of citizens , there are still many people who have severe diseases who need special treatment. So allocating a small amount of money to do some early protection seems a proper way rather than there is little money and medicine to treat a disease.
Putting money to improve health education and preventative measures is an effective way to enhance people’s health. In some places, especially rural areas, not too many people equip knowledge (there are not too many people equipped with knowledge) about health and have no idea (how to prevent diseases) to prevent the disease before , so it is important to educate them because they might not have enough money to get cured. If every citizen knows how to prevent illness, the quantity of ill people would decline so the burden (like building a free hospital and giving out welfare to the ill) on society would be lighter.
For instance, the government can use the resources to strengthen the military instead of curing people. Admittedly, there are still many people who get diseases because the prevention is not always useful and some diseases come with birth , so treatments are needed. As the transportation developed , people could travel all over the world , so did viruses. Diseases spread widely and fast while some people do not even get warned to take precautions. Finally, they will get ill, therefore improving the treatment is more important than health education and prevention due to it being urgent and demanded.
Overall, investing a large amount of money in health education and preventative measures is not a proper way because treatments are needed and practical. But putting a small amount of money into health education and prevention seems more reasonable in the present situation. 2. Smoking is a big threat to people’s health which has already been proved. It is illegal to smoke in public places in some countries but there are some special areas for smokers. In my point of view, I can not agree more, all countries should make a law to restrict smoking due to it being good for the ealth of citizens, however, it is an unrealistic expectation for all countries. So smokers should govern themselves when they want to smoke. The limitation of smoking is a good law for the health of citizens whether young or old. Cigarettes contain a large amount of poisonous substances, after combustion cigarettes will produce poisonous gas which can cause lung cancer and other diseases . Therefore, smoking in public places is not only bad for smokers’ health but also threatens the health of people who never smoke.
Also , the burning cigarette can cause fires in public places so it is a big danger to society, however, there are still many people who are addicted to smoking. Setting up some special places for smokers is necessary to solve these problems of where they can smoke and not affect others’ health as well. To some extent, it is unrealistic for all countries to make a rule to restrict smoking. First , in some developing countries , the government does not have enough capital and space to build certain areas for smokers.
Second , there are too many smokers in the world , if they smoke in public places , it would be difficult to restrict all smokers. So , solving the smoking problem can not only rely on setting rules (so to solve the problem of smoking we cannot rely only on setting up certain rules), it also needs everyone to make an effort . When we watch someone smoking, we can suggest he or she not to smoke and smokers should rule themselves to smoke in a separate place where there are no people.
In summary, limiting smokers smoking in public places is a good rule but it is hard to achieve around the world , so each citizen should take responsibility to make the cigarette far away from our lives. 3. Some people think that creative artists should have rights to show their thoughts and innovations in different forms such as music, literature, film and words without restrictions of the government. In my opinion, I only agree this partly due to some kinds of art having negative effects on children who could not control themselves and they get away with some bad–effecting arts but most of arts are fantastic for people to enjoy.
So, society still needs restrictions on some types of arts which could hurt children. In our daily life, we can not live without various kinds of arts, so freedoms for creative artists are important. Our moods could be cultivated by many forms of art which are expressed by sounds, feelings and tastes. Artists have magic powers to bring us a wonderful world which we can not experience in mundane life, they make us calm down and think more about the truth of life also they use their angles, their take on life, to show a different life so that we could find more details which we have never noticed in the life.
Only creative artists are free to express their emotions, thus we could be able to see the world with a lot of colours. Not all arts are suitable for children so the government should restrict some types of art to protect children. Children’s crime happens frequently in recent days due to them being affected by some negative films and games which are full of violence and pornography. Children have no thought about whether it is wrong to imitate what actors did in the film so they would kill others on the street or steal goods in a store.
Governments can limit some arts or not allow people who are under 18 years old to watch them. In summary , as long as arts are good for the spirit of people or do not have negative effects on children , the government should give these artists enough spare spaces to show their talent, but if the art is harmful it should be limited by laws. 4 In current days , biotechnology companies concentrate on innovating a new food–genetically modified (GM) crops without considering potential dangers to health and the environment.
I think this way is interfering with nature so it should be forbidden due to it being not only dangerous to individuals but also wasting money while developing. These crops may be dangerous to our health and environment. This new food has been invented recently, so far no one has an exact answer to whether it is harmful to our health and environment due to nobody wanting to do an experiment on themselves to test their safety and it would take a few decades to find out what kind of diseases people might get after eating those crops for a long time.
Also GM crops may destroy nutrition in the soil of fields but there is no farmer wanting to take risks to grow foods which may not be accepted and bought by consumers. Developing GM crops is a waste of money. Current technology has not reached such a high level which could change the gene, besides many domains (the medical domain, biological domain and,et cetera) need biotechnology companies to improve such as finding out some new medicine to cure cancers , so they have many urgent problems to solve and researching crops is a waste of money.
Taking cloned sheep Dolly as an example, cloning an animal failed finally because this small sheep died from a disease which was out of the control of scientists. So developing something more practical is more useful to people. In summary, interfering with nature is just like fighting with lighting because nature is too powerful which we can not change it at present. So the innovation of GM crops should be prohibited because it is a potential danger to our health and environment also it wastes a large quantity of money. 5.
Learning how to compete or how to cooperate with others remains a debate recently (Whether to compete or cooperate with others is being debated as regards to children’s education). As far as I am concerned, both thing are basic skills for children when they get into the society because competing helps children learning how to live alone well and cooperating helps teenagers knowing how to get along with each other. For instance, when we study in school we should concentrate on both teamwork and exams, which need many people and one person respectively.
Having competition with other peers is benefit to children . Competition will make them know, outside world, only a person who is strong enough could live a better life. Taking wildlife as an example , when a lion is trying to catch an antelope ,this is a competition of speed and only the winner who is faster (only the fastest will be the winner) could survive. If the lion loses ,it might die of hunger and if the antelope loses it will become prey which is eaten by the lion. Similarly, the rat race in society is just like the competition between animals.
So children should have this awareness before they enter society. It is also important to cooperate with others for children. In some situations, a big project can not be finished by one particular person instead it needs many people who concentrate on different aspects to work together so cooperating is a necessary skill for children to learn. Just like a music band , around ten people are needed , one should play guitar the other should play piano and one person needs to sing on the stage ,only they set up the same target-performing a nice show and having the same hythm ,thus they could perform a wonderful piece of music. So cooperating is also needed for a child. Overall , training two skills-competing and cooperating in children in daily life is a benefit to those children’s future when they work for the society also using these skills in a proper way could make the children more successful than others. Though there are those who debate about whether teaching children to compete or cooperate, which is better, I hold that it is a false argument. In fact both these qualities need to be encouraged in young people to make them ready for the world.