Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.
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.
In a Utopian world, we could see a cosmos bereft of conflicts or predicaments. Unfortunately, such a Utopia could only exist in our imagination and the real world today is infested with a multitude of problems. Issues ranging from the precariously held peace between country to racial and gender equality poke ceaselessly at our bubble of volatile equilibrium, threatening to penetrate the membrane at any time. Such problems could be categorized into immediate and anticipated problems, the priority of which has been met with a glut of debate where there seems to be no conclusive decision. However, I truly believe that solving potential problems should take higher precedence to imminent ones. I would like to use the following paragraphs to elucidate my viewpoints.
First and foremost, it is easy for proponents of the opposite view to argue that immediate problems have a much narrower response duration. While it is certainly true that such problems would engender harm much earlier than contingent ones, many fail to realize the cause of issues at our fingertips is the insolvency or negligence of anticipated problems from the past. Take the water flooding nuisance in Taiwan as an example. In the 1950s, the people living near Keelung River had noticed a superfluous amount of water that come gushing from the riverbeds every time it rained. Nevertheless, the government did not take action, treating it as an "annoyance" that the citizens should just deal with themselves. It was not until the 1970s when the flooding truly exacerbated and ruined the lives of many that those in charge decided to jump in and attempt to curb the waters. Alas! Had the government put efforts into solving the problem early on, the peaceful village near Keelung River wouldn't have suffered such devastating repercussions.
Equally noteworthy is the hefty alloted time an anticipated problem would give the authorities to predict and conquer. Such amount of time would allow the government to examine past data and trends and compare them to current phenomena in order to pinpoint the best way to combat the issue when a crisis truly arises. A well-known example in history is in ancient China, when the advisor Zhu of a benevolent emperor Liu successfully used his wits and logic to win many battles due to precaution and preparation. Zhu analyzed past wars and proposed many important military strategies even before the next battle's bugle was blown. Of all his distinguished feats, the war against the Tsao was of most significant, as he realized how their enemies always had campfire close to the East before they raged war. Using the given amount of time before a potential threat of the battle, Zhu successfully precluded the war altogether with logic and reason.
"Precaution is better than cure." Goethe had already taught us this amazing lesson through his wise words. By way of conclusion I would like to reiterate the importance for the government to try to solve anticipated problems of the future. Immediate problems are more likely than not to have been borne from contingent threats, and thus foreseeing its rise by examining past events with scrutiny could one truly prevent nuisances to pop up at inconvenient times. While there certainly are surprises that could happen regardless of preparation, trying to eradicate future problems before they could happen is what I believe to be the only way for the authorities to maximize social utility.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 242, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun fail seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much fail', 'a good deal of fail'.
Suggestion: much fail; a good deal of fail
...harm much earlier than contingent ones, many fail to realize the cause of issues at our f...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1000, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...the peaceful village near Keelung River wouldnt have suffered such devastating repercus...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
...ed such devastating repercussions. Equally noteworthy is the hefty alloted time an...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, nevertheless, so, thus, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 90.0 58.6224719101 154% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2922.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 566.0 442.535393258 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16254416961 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91163290323 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 318.0 215.323595506 148% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56183745583 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 927.9 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6803709023 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.043478261 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6086956522 23.4991977007 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.39130434783 5.21951772744 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.13820224719 234% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193579702426 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0524863916246 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614834953062 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118295045834 0.150359130593 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0493076275036 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 100.480337079 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.