“Prevention is better than cure.”
Out of a country’s health budget, a large proportion should be diverted from treatment to spending on health education and preventative measures.
Human being traditionally has the trend of using harmful substances as a way of rifting the stress to have a calmer physiology whilst others are strongly convinced to stay away from harmful nutrition moreover while they wish to see all unhealty nutritions are impeded by compelling by the goverment. This essay intends to range some clear reasons to reach a solution.
First of all, one of the most benefical aspect of the positive part of restricting would be saving money which would contribute to country’s account and which can be used on education, culture and for other benefits for the people of the country. Secondly, in my opinion the strongest outcome of prohibiting and investing money on healt education would probably enable people to live healtier and as a consequent the recovering which could be seen in the next generation, a revived generation which is alien for cigarette, alcohol, etc and what is more is to readily observe the decrease on the death rate. These would be most considerable outcomes of prevention.
On the other hand, I dont think that impeding and forcing people not to use what they would like to is feasible. Because it has been observed that, it the past, the consequences of preventing things could prompt to have some remarkable solutions, such as having a society which is in favour of a restricting culture. Apart from the fact that having a culture like that, depriving people to have enjoyable productions would may be aggravate the sitatuation and could create a depressed society.
İn conclusion, I would recommend not to impede but at least to mitigate the harmful things which cause people to have illnesses and by establishing restrictive rules gradually not to attract the hatred of people and I would suggest, of course, to invest money on education that can achieve after restrictings so that we can have a healtier and well-educated population about healt.
Half of traditional human beings have a trend of (???) using harmful substances to rift the stress and have a calmer physiology, which in contrast were (stay away)->avoided by the other half. (Or “Half of traditional human beings believes using harmful substances could help them overcome a number of disorders, while the other half refuses taking in this type of medicine). This essay shall discuss both sides of the argument.
First of all, (one of the most beneficial aspect)-> one of the benefits of the positive part of controlling the medicine use provides economic attractiveness. The saving budget can either contribute to the country’s economy or invest in education, culture and for other benefits for the people of the country other community services. Secondly, in my opinion the strongest outcome(???) widespread health education would probably (enable)-> encourages people to live healthier. As a consequence (negative meaning)-> as a result, the-> a recovering-> recovery whereby alcoholic or smoking addition is prevented could be seen in the next generation, (a revived generation (which) who is alien(???)for cigarette, alcohol, etc.). What is more, is to readily observe the decrease on the death rate. (These are most considerable outcomes -> promising outcome of prevention)-> In short, prevention brings about significant long-term benefits for the human society.
On the other hand, I don’t think that-> (unacademic!) impeding and forcing people not to use what they (would like to) appear to be feasible, because-> as it has been observed that, several negative impacts have already been reported. What is worse, depriving->strictly banning (have enjoyable)-> people from using their preferable productions->products would may(???) be aggravate-> would aggravate (aggravate is a verb!!!) the situation and could create a depressed society. (Or “the situation becomes worse when strictly prohibiting people from using their preferable products could possibly lead to depression among the society).
İn conclusion, I would recommend not to impede but at least-> instead of prohibition, the harmful factors should be immigated which cause people to have illnesses and gradual regulations should be established in order to create gradually not to attract the hatred of people suggest, of course, (unacademic!!!) money on-> that can achieve after restriction so that (unacdemic!!!) a healthier and well-educated population-> society.
Task achievement: 5.0 (the ideas and evidence are not strong and supportive enough, especially for the side of offense)
Coherence and Cohesion: 4.0 (organization and development is poor)
Lexical resource: 4.0 (words that aren’t necessary to be that complicated, words that are misspelled, words that are unacademic). (And also be careful when you use “a” and “the”)
Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 4.0 (sentences are too unnecessarily long and poorly-structured)
Please login or Register to submit your answer