Câu hỏi:

07/01/2025 290

Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical services should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private health care outweigh the disadvantages?

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

The significance of good health is undeniable and universally acknowledged. With this in mind, the debate about whether medical services should be in the hands of profit-making entities remains a contentious issue. In this essay, I will delve into the advantages and disadvantages of private health care.

On the one hand, private health care institutions tend to offer higher quality services compared to public ones. They frequently invest in state-of-the-art equipment and advanced technologies to provide the most updated treatments. Furthermore, with a customer-oriented approach, patients in private clinics often experience shorter waiting times and receive more personalized care.

However, these benefits come with certain drawbacks. One of the most glaring disadvantages of private health care is its exorbitant costs. Not everyone can afford these premium services, potentially creating a divide in healthcare accessibility between the affluent and the less fortunate. Moreover, because they operate for profit, there is a risk that some essential but less lucrative services might be excluded from their offerings. Finally, the drive for profit could, in some cases, compromise the quality of care, as clinics might prioritize revenue over patients’ well-being.

In conclusion, while private health care services present numerous advantages like superior facilities and quicker service, the inherent drawbacks, primarily stemming from their profit-driven nature, cannot be ignored. It is imperative that a balance is struck between making healthcare accessible to all and maintaining high service standards.

Sample 2:

In recent decades, it can be noticed that private healthcare has been increasingly essential in our society. However, some people believe that good health and well-being are crucial for all people and therefore healthcare services should not be managed by privately-owned companies whose primary goal is profit. Despite some obvious disadvantages of this statement, I would agree that they are outweighed by the advantages.

On the one hand, there are two major drawbacks when medical services are offered by private companies. The first one is that private healthcare services might be costly, and many people simply can not afford them. For example, the poor who have low income could not access the services of private healthcare because they need to pay high fees due to the cost of high-tech equipment with quick service. Another one is that private health insurance does not cover 100% of the cost. At some specific private hospitals and clinics, private health insurance only covers about 70-80% of medical expenses, so the patient needs to pay the remaining amount. Moreover, if patients sign up for a health insurance plan that does not fit their needs, they might have to pay or waste money whether they use the system or not.

On the other hand, I would argue that these disadvantages are outweighed by some main benefits. Firstly, private healthcare hospitals or clinics could reduce the workload of public medical centers. For instance, during epidemics like COVID-19 or SARS 2003 - when the number of patients being hospitalized increased daily, using private healthcare services would help doctors at state-owned hospitals to take better care of their patients as well as reduce the burden on the public system. Secondly, patients could benefit from short waiting times and modern systems. Private healthcare services provide personalized consultants or doctors so that patients could save their time for appointments and have a specialized treatment process. In addition, patients could enjoy the systems with the most modern facilities which bring customers the most comfortable and safe experience when using services. 

In conclusion, it seems to me that the advantages of using medical services run by profit-making companies are more profound than the drawbacks of their contributions to citizens. 

Sample 3:

Good health is undeniably a cornerstone of a fulfilling life, and many argue that it should be safeguarded from profit-driven interests. While there might be some valid concerns about the morality of this business model, I firmly believe that the advantages are far more significant.

Critics of private healthcare often express ethical concerns related to the profit-driven nature of these institutions. They may argue that profit motives in private healthcare can sometimes give rise to overmedicalization and unnecessary procedures. In a competitive market, there may be incentives to recommend additional tests or treatments, potentially exposing patients to risks and financial burdens. These concerns, however, are often limited to the very most extreme situations, and not applicable to the vast majority of private healthcare facilities which still successfully maintain high ethical standards, prioritizing patient welfare over profit margins, and delivering quality care without unnecessary intervention.

In my opinion, private healthcare can be more beneficial in terms of a higher quality of services and individualized experiences. Private institutions often compete for patients, driving them to invest in state-of-the-art facilities, employ skilled professionals, and adopt cutting-edge treatments, resulting in quicker access to care, reduced waiting times, and a broader range of treatment options. Additionally, private healthcare can offer a level of personalized attention and comfort that may be lacking in public facilities. With a lower patient-to-staff ratio, medical practitioners can devote more time to individual cases, enabling tailored treatment plans for patient well-being.

In conclusion, although there might be some instances where profit motives may lead to overmedicalization, these cases represent the exception rather than the rule. The potential for higher quality services and personalized care makes private healthcare a valuable complement to public services.

Sample 4:

Private healthcare services have become increasingly prevalent in many parts of the world, and whether their advantages outweigh the disadvantages is a subject of ongoing debate. In my view, the advantages of private healthcare do indeed outweigh the disadvantages.

On the one hand, private healthcare systems often tout several advantages. Firstly, proponents argue that competition in the private sector can drive innovation and efficiency. Profit-driven companies may invest in cutting-edge technologies, attract top medical professionals, and provide quicker access to specialized care. Patients under private healthcare systems might experience shorter wait times for elective procedures and have more control over their choice of doctors and treatments. Additionally, private healthcare systems can offer greater amenities and personalized services, which some individuals may find appealing. Luxurious hospitals, shorter waiting times, and the ability to choose one's physician are all seen as benefits of private healthcare.

However, these advantages come with their own set of disadvantages. Private healthcare can be expensive, leading to disparities in access to care. Those with the financial means receive top-tier treatment, while those without face barriers to essential services. This can result in unequal health outcomes and exacerbate existing social inequalities. Furthermore, the profit motive inherent in private healthcare can lead to practices that prioritize financial gain over patient well-being. In some cases, there have been allegations of unnecessary procedures and overprescription of medications to maximize profits. This can undermine the trust between patients and healthcare providers.

In conclusion, while it's true that private healthcare can have its drawbacks, the benefits it brings make it a valuable component of the healthcare landscape.

Sample 5:

Good health is perceived by some as a primary human necessity, which leads to the argument that medical services should not be operated by profit-oriented companies. However, I am convinced that private healthcare, despite being associated with certain drawbacks, brings about more significant benefits for people.

It is true that privatizing the medical sector comes with certain disadvantages, with accessibility being a chief concern. Private healthcare entities often operate with a strong profit motive, necessitating substantial investments in cutting-edge medical equipment, hiring top-tier medical professionals, and conducting extensive marketing campaigns to stay competitive. While these investments are aimed at delivering high-quality services, they can inadvertently make these services inaccessible to a significant portion of the population. A stark example of this issue can be observed in the United States, where the predominantly private healthcare system has led to exorbitant costs, such as an average ambulance ride without insurance costing around $1300, rendering it unaffordable for many low-income families.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the advantages of private healthcare are more pronounced. Private hospitals play a crucial role in alleviating the strain on state-owned healthcare facilities during periods of high demand. For instance, during the 2019 COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam, private hospitals played a pivotal role in helping state-run facilities cope with the surging number of patients. Furthermore, competition among privately-owned healthcare institutions can act as a catalyst for improvement in state-run hospitals. The desire to retain their customer base and market position motivates state hospitals to enhance their medical services and technology, ultimately resulting in higher-quality care for patients. This can translate into shorter waiting times for examinations and surgeries, as well as improved access to modern healthcare amenities.

In conclusion, while private healthcare has its downsides, notably high costs, I contend that its merits, including reducing pressure on state-owned healthcare institutions and driving improvements in their services, carry more weight in the overall assessment of its impact.

Sample 6:

Some people hold the belief that health is a basic necessity for everyone, thus medical services should not be privatised and operated on a for-profit basis. In my opinion, the perks of private healthcare overshadow the downsides as long as patients' well-being remains the top concern.

Among the numerous benefits of private clinics, the most significant one would be continuity with doctors. Instead of having to recount their existing conditions every single visitation due to being attended to by different physicians, patients can request for consultation with their regular attendants at private healthcare providers who possess not only extensive knowledge about their medical history but also their utmost confidence. This continuous doctor-patient relationship is likely to result in higher success rate in treatment. Another advantage worth mentioning is access to private rooms and unrestricted visiting hours made possible by a smaller clientele and larger funds. As opposed to the cramped and stress-inducing environment at public hospitals, these services by private clinics could help boost patients' morale and accelerate their recovery.

Nevertheless, these perks come at an exorbitant price, so only a select few could afford such a service. Profit also dictates private healthcare facilities to give priority to those who have money to pay, unlike public hospitals which offer equal treatment regardless of one's financial status. Some would argue this inequality drives a bigger division between the rich and the poor, but perhaps they have failed to consider how private hospitals' for-profit operations make paying staff sufficient income possible. This means private clinicians could enjoy financial stability along with better spirits to serve their patients compared to their public counterparts. Extra funds also help private institutions in procuring the latest facilities and procedures to maximise the efficiency of their treatments.

All things considered, although private healthcare providers' money-based services exclude many members of the general populace, I still maintain that their existence is necessary to provide patients with more options so long as their budget and personal needs allow.

Sample 7:

These days many people feel that good health and well-being is essential to all people and therefore healthcare services should not be run by privately owned companies, whose main objective is to make profit. Personally, while I do agree with this statement, I also believe that private healthcare services do have many advantages.

Firstly, public hospitals in most countries are usually overcrowded and underfunded which can put a lot of pressure on doctors, nursing staff and patients to recover quickly so that more people can be treated. When people choose private healthcare services it can help to reduce the burden on the public system, and as a result can also help to reduce the amount of money required by the government for funding. In addition to this, those who choose to pay for private healthcare services will experience many benefits, such as the quality and speed of treatments, short waiting times for appointments and operations, and more private and comfortable facilities.

However, while there are a number of benefits to private healthcare, there are also a number of drawbacks. To begin with, private healthcare insurance is very costly, and many people simply cannot afford it. In addition, private healthcare insurance is usually paid on a monthly basis, whether you use the system or not, and therefore many people pay thousands of dollars each year for private healthcare but never need to use the facilities or services. Many people consider this to be a waste of money. Furthermore, some people also argue that private healthcare services create inequality between citizens of a nation as only the wealthy can afford the best and quickest treatment available.

In conclusion, I believe that as long as governments do their best to provide a good standard of healthcare facilities and services for the general public, then private healthcare services can also exist and provide many advantages that will outweigh the disadvantages.

Sample 8:

Good health is universally valued, leading some to argue that medical services should not be driven by profit-making motives. In my opinion, despite reservations regarding profit-driven healthcare, the benefits of private medical services in distributing public healthcare responsibilities and offering advanced treatment options surpass any potential disadvantages.

One compelling reason why private healthcare can be advantageous is its ability to share the burden with state-run healthcare systems. By alleviating pressure on public hospitals in terms of patient overload and financial strain, private facilities complement state efforts to deliver quality healthcare. For instance, Singapore's Medisave scheme, jointly funded by workers and employers, has reduced reliance on state hospitals, thereby enhancing healthcare quality through investments in primary services.

Furthermore, private healthcare offers significant benefits to those who can afford it. Patients often enjoy greater access to advanced treatments and modern technology, unhindered by national budget constraints. This results in superior treatment quality and efficiency, evidenced by shorter waiting times and more comfortable facilities. In the United States, private healthcare dominates, providing diverse medical services across hospitals, clinics, and private practices.

In conclusion, despite concerns about profit-driven healthcare, the advantages of private medical services in sharing public healthcare responsibilities and providing superior treatment options outweigh the potential drawbacks. Governments should consider leveraging private sector efficiency to enhance overall healthcare accessibility and quality.

Sample 9:

Few topics are more important than a nation’s healthcare, and the issue of whether or not medical treatment should be provided by private companies will probably always be controversial. It is therefore worthwhile to investigate this issue from different aspects.

On the one hand, there are a number of obvious merits. The most apparent advantage is that private health providers can help share the onerous financial burden imposed by the medical care of the elder recipients. To be specific, in countries with aging populations, tax burden on working citizens has become intolerably high, and can even stifle economic growth. As a matter of fact, the balance of cost sharing will inevitably shift dramatically toward the young taxpayers, as the government will definitely resort to tax revenue. These painful lessons, shown by states such as France, seem to demonstrate that funding of medical care solely by the government is economically unsustainable.

On the other hand, despite the fact that this practice is beneficial to some extent, it also brings about some drawbacks. The most significant issue relates to the cost to accommodate treatment. For private organizations which are money-oriented, professional ethics will be discarded in the pursuit of money. In particular, many patients have to pay exorbitant medical bills when the latest, and often most expensive drugs are deliberately prescribed. Since the governments do not have any measures to control over the misconducts of these private treatment facilities, it gradually drives up the cost of the overall healthcare system of a country.

To summarise, I agree with those who argue that an exclusive health provision by the government is a worthy ambition for a country to have. However, this aspiration suffers significantly when confronted with demographics and financial reality, and therefore this needs to be supplemented by other methods, in particular private healthcare. In this case, the government should ensure that standards and services will not be sacrificed for higher profits at these private heal facilities.

Sample 10:

In contemporary society, the provision of medical services plays a pivotal role in addressing the fundamental human need for good health. However, there is an ongoing debate regarding the involvement of profit-making companies in running medical services. This essay will discuss the perspective that good health is a basic human need, and therefore, medical services should not be driven by profit-making motives.

One compelling reason to support the notion that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies is the importance of ensuring equitable access to healthcare. When profit becomes the driving force, there is a risk of compromising the accessibility of medical services, especially for vulnerable populations with limited financial resources. For example, in countries where profit-making companies dominate the healthcare sector, individuals from low-income backgrounds may face substantial financial barriers to receiving essential treatments or accessing preventive care. This disparity can exacerbate existing health inequalities and lead to a society where only those who can afford premium healthcare services receive the necessary treatment.

Another significant argument against profit-making companies running medical services is the potential shift in focus from patient well-being to financial gains. In a profit-oriented system, there is a risk of treatments and services being driven by profitability rather than patient needs. For instance, pharmaceutical companies may prioritize the development and marketing of drugs that are more profitable but not necessarily the most effective or beneficial for patients. This profit-driven approach can undermine the quality of care and compromise patient outcomes.

In conclusion, the argument that good health is a basic human need and should not be driven by profit-making companies in the provision of medical services holds substantial merit. Ensuring equitable access to healthcare and maintaining a patient-centred approach are crucial considerations in healthcare delivery. By prioritizing the well-being of individuals over financial gains, healthcare systems can strive for a more equitable and compassionate approach.

Sample 11:

Good healthcare service is a fundamental need for every citizen in a country. But when this sector is run by money-making private organisations, they become too expensive for the poor and the middle class. This is why, I agree with the notion that medical services should not be run by for-profit private organizations.

First, when health service is run and controlled by money-making private companies, the healthcare sector then turns into a profitable business sector. Those private organisations’ main objective is to make money, and thus only rich citizens can pay for their treatment. Since the government does not have any control over the treatment facilities of these hospitals and healthcare centres, they charge people as much as they like. Thus, they make the overall healthcare system expensive in a country.

Second, private healthcare centres are often accused of overcharging and wrong treatment, and yet they are not punished for the misdeed they conduct. Many people opine that private healthcare centres and hospitals are far neater and clean and have more qualified doctors. However, those doctors should be serving in public hospitals instead of making money somewhere else. Thus the professional ethics of doctors are ruined by their practice in private hospitals. Furthermore, the government collects a huge amount of tax from its citizens and should be obliged to provide health care services to people for free rather than letting private hospitals loot people.

In conclusion, the amount the private healthcare service providers charge for treatment is outrageous, and mass people cannot afford that. The government should ensure proper healthcare facilities for all of its citizens and quality public healthcare service is a better solution than allowing private companies to control this important sector whose sole objective is to make profits.

Sample 12:

A human can not live if his/her health condition is critical, that's why we say health is wealth. So the basic human need is good health. If medical services are run by profit-making companies, there is an absolute possibility of medical service rejection for poor & underprivileged people. So I do agree that good health is very important to every person and I also support the statement that says medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, in this fast-moving society, we must agree that almost everyone has lost patience and wants to find a quick solution for everything. Profit-making medical service companies use modern medicine to find quick solutions for any health illness. But at the same time, we can not ignore that modern medicine treats the disease and not the patient. Whereas the traditional treatment takes time to cure a person but certainly there won’t be any side effects.

Furthermore, when a medical company is said to be profit-making then it’s pure business, and the term “medical service” becomes non-existing because a service can never be monetized. But on the contrary, people offering medical services also need a source of income to meet their daily essentials. So the best possible solution is for the state authority to take control as the sole medical service provider, which would eliminate the private profit-making companies and eventually every individual will get access to every treatment.

To conclude, Health is a priority for all. It is the duty of the state governments to provide best-in-class medical services. When it fails to render such services, profit-making companies will come into existence. People must understand and start to adapt to a natural way of life that will keep them far away from this macro-level politics. So yes, I do agree with the statement that good health is very important to every person, so medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 13:

It is a fact that for a person to survive he/she needs good health, and it is a basic human need. But witnessing the present public health sector, we must consider private medical service providers. For best and better treatment inclusive of modern facilities, private health service providers are on the top. I do agree that good health is very important to every person, I partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, the public health service sector manages its financial requirements from the taxpayer’s funds. But the only source of income for private medical service providers is the people who come for treatment. People who are working in the private health service sector also need revenue to meet their everyday essentials. Due to the lack of proper facilities and treatment methods followed by public health services, people are left with no other option but to choose private medical services.

Furthermore, not all Private medical service providers are profit-making companies. There are exceptions but few in number. Only in private-run medical services, we can see advanced high-tech equipment, Faster service, modern facilities, and many more. Still, there are private health service providers whom people trust because of his/her dedication, service, and affordability. It is people’s mindset that if they get treated in a hospital that takes high charges, they will get 100% cured. Due to this thought process, they get easily trapped by profit-making medical service companies.

To Conclude, lack of awareness among the people is the prime investment for profit-making medical service companies as they make use of a person’s fear of death. People must start living a healthy lifestyle to avoid using promoted chemical products and unhygienic food habits. Though I do agree with half of the statement that good health is very important to every person, I partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 14:

In today’s world, people choose advanced technology and modern facilities. Health is wealth so a person tends to be double precautious. The public health sector lacks in many major areas when compared to private medical service providers. Just because of weak systems and public health sector failures, the people will eventually choose to take treatment in a private-run medical service unit. We all must agree to the factual ground reality that good health is a basic human need. But I would argue and partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Firstly, the most common misconception about private medical service providers is that they are entirely into profit-making. This is partially true, but not all Private medical service providers are profit-making companies. There are exceptions but few in number. Only in private-run medical services, we can see ample in-patient areas where a large number of patients can be attended to without any delay, treatment for almost any kind of disease, and even medical specialists are called from other regions for exceptional cases, the center is equipped with high-end technology and modern facilities. The most important reason for people to opt for private medical services is that they get individual attention for treatment. All these options can not be seen at public health service units. There may be numerous reasons but that’s the ground reality.

Furthermore, Due to budget constraints, the government is unable to provide proper health services in many rural regions and we can find private medical facilities extending their service support. Most private medical service providers use modern medicine which tends to treat and cure patients quickly. But at the same time, we can not ignore that modern medicine treats the disease and not the patient. Whereas the traditional treatments like Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani take time to cure a person but certainly there won’t be any side effects. Both types of treatment are offered by private health service providers.

To conclude, it is purely based on a person’s belief & awareness that leads him/her to choose between modern or traditional medical treatment. The majority of private medical providers do not use traditional methodology. Modern treatment tends to charge high because of the huge investment in equipment and facilities offered. When compared with the medical service rendered by the government of a state, the advantages of private health care units certainly outshine their very own drawbacks. Without any doubt, I certainly agree that good health is very important to every person, But I have given many supportive points and partially agree that medical services should not be run by profit-making companies.

Sample 15:

The issue of healthcare provision is a polarizing topic, with some advocating for public control due to the essential nature of good health. However, private healthcare centers have gained prominence, leading to a nuanced discussion about their pros and cons.

One of the primary advantages of private healthcare centers is the potential for higher efficiency and better quality of care. These centers often invest significantly in state-of-the-art equipment, employ skilled professionals, and offer personalized services, leading to quicker diagnoses and advanced treatments. Moreover, the competitive nature of the private sector can drive innovation and improve overall healthcare standards.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of private healthcare are equally significant. One major concern is the affordability of services. Private healthcare, often catering to the affluent population, can be prohibitively expensive for many individuals. This economic barrier limits access to essential medical services, exacerbating societal health disparities. Additionally, the profit-oriented approach might lead to unnecessary medical procedures and over-prescription of medications to increase revenue, potentially compromising patient well-being.

Furthermore, the privatization of healthcare can divert resources away from public health systems, diminishing their quality and accessibility. In countries where private healthcare is prominent, the public sector often struggles, leaving those without the means to afford private services at a significant disadvantage.

In conclusion, while private healthcare centers offer advanced and efficient services, their disadvantages, including affordability issues and strain on public healthcare systems, cannot be ignored. Striking a balance between the advantages of private healthcare and ensuring equitable, affordable, and high-quality healthcare for all remains a challenge that societies must address to safeguard the health and well-being of their citizens.

Sample 16:

Private health care institutions and government hospitals are at present two major sources of medical service for the public. However, some people suggest that medical services should not be operated by profit-oriented private companies. Personally, I don’t agree with them because the advantages of private health care far outweigh the disadvantages.

Undoubtedly, private health care services can bring a lot of benefits to people. For example, when you have a medical emergency, you get instant treatment. You don’t have to wait for long hours as in a government hospital. Moreover, private health care institutions, generally, specialize in particular health care services like nursing, midwifery or dental service. These places provide friendly and personalized service and high-quality professional medical treatment.

Furthermore, the competition provided by these institutes is the driving force for improvements. Because of private health care institutions, the government-owned ones are forced to take measures to better their management, which eventually benefits the public in the long run. What’s more, private health care institutions are playing a big role in remote areas and rural areas where also they provide services through mobile van hospitals.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages too. The cost of treatment in these is very high and is not within the pocket of many. Then, because these hospitals have the latest machines and employ the best doctors, the cost of running them is high and so sometimes an unnecessary battery of tests is performed which raises the cost of treatment.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that private health care is absolutely necessary. They provide the best services and so deserve to make profits. However, there should be some provision for keeping a check on unfair practices used in such hospitals.

Sample 17:

More and more people are opting for private healthcare facilities than the public despite the fact that the latter is more affordable. The primary reasons are that in public health care centers there’s poor infrastructure, non-availability of doctors, the absence of IPD and OPD, dissatisfaction with quality standards. You have to wait for a lot of time unless there is an emergency. You cannot choose your own doctor.

Whereas if you choose to go to a private health care center, you’ll get treated as soon as you and your doctor are ready. In most rural India, medical doctors are untrained. You must have read the news of a sweeper in a government hospital injecting patients. How can one expect to trust government hospitals after reading news like this? Even stretchers are not available at many public health care centers. The Indian government spends only 30% of the country’s total healthcare budget.

If public health care is really good in our country, then do the politicians never visit their government hospitals when they are sick? Because they know how they are run. They are aware of the fact that government hospitals don’t have proper infrastructure, and they might be wrongly diagnosed with a disease. There are a lot of loopholes in our public health care system. The issues need to be addressed and taken care of.

If the public healthcare systems are properly equipped and the doctors are properly trained, then people would have no problem shifting from private to the public healthcare system.

Sample 18:

Healthy people make a healthy society. Both government and private sectors are responsible for providing health care facilities. Although many people argue that medical facilities should be given to private companies to handle, I am not in favor that the drawbacks of privatization of medical departments outrank the benefits.

To begin with, the opponents of private hospitals may argue that these are money-oriented organizations, and their main motive is to earn money by all means. Certainly, health should not be taken care of by those people whose main motive is financial gain only. Secondly, these days modern private hospitals are not less than any four or five-star hotels. They cater to all the luxurious needs of well-off patients. These expensive hospitals and their high-class treatments are meant for the rich only. Moreover, private health centers charge a hefty amount that cannot be borne by the poor easily.

On the other side, all the governments have to rely on the private sector in all major domains such as education, banking and healthcare, etc. Considering the increasing number of people who need medical care, the privatization of the medical sector has become a social demand. First and foremost, private hospitals are providing services almost everywhere. This has been a boon to many people who live in remote areas. Private hospitals have emerged as a lifesaver for many valuable lives. Another reason is the treatment in private healthcare facilities is quicker than the public hospitals. Furthermore, it has also been seen that the hospitals run by the government lack many facilities. In comparison, private units are fully equipped, and efficient service is ensured.

To sum up, privatization of health care is necessary for the betterment of society. However, the government should implement some strict rules and regulations to control the unnecessary demands of private hospitals. 

Sample 19:

It is believed that the key to lead a happy life is to possess a good health, so healthcare services should be provided by private hospitals or clinics rather than public ones. Despite some positive impacts, I think that the domination of private medical services brings about more adverse effects.

On the one hand, patients themselves benefit much from the policy of running profit-making medical service. The initial point is that doctors and nurses in private ones cater for patients more carefully and meticulously. Patients do not have to pass a long waiting list before being medically examined and diagnosed. Also, private hospitals can offer more specialized care and treatment and an excellent doctor-to-patient ratio. Another argument is this trend can also lead to a higher-quality healthcare service. In order to compete with others to make more profit, those money-makers will employ well-qualified doctors and apply cutting-edge medical equipment, and therefore, patients can make a quicker recovery from ailments or severe diseases.

On the other hand, I would argue that the aforementioned advantages are overshadowed by disadvantages. There still exist some immoral private hospitals or clinics that are driven by the incentives to gain money rather than save people's life. The employment of unskilled doctors or careless nursesreduces their spending on salaries, but it may either put patients' health in danger or even deprive their lives. For example, the Today News program on TV informed many circumstances dying after minor operations due to over-dosed anesthesia in some clinics. In addition, the private healthcare centres are often accused of overcharging, so patients living in poverty are incapable of paying for this exorbitant fee. If medical care is all run by non-public companies, many people have to live with diseases.

In conclusion, albeit positive to some extent, the domination of private hospitals has more negative consequences.

Bình luận


Bình luận

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Although fossil fuels still remain the most important energy sources in many places, some countries are now already using alternative sources like solar or wind power. In my opinion, it can be difficult for a country to move towards using alternative energy at first, but this development brings about several benefits in the long run.

On the one hand, the change towards using alternative types of energy would probably put a heavy financial burden on the government and companies as they will have to invest millions of dollars in purchasing and developing new equipment and facilities for harnessing solar, wind or hydro-electric power. For example, the average cost of installing a wind turbine for generating electricity is about $3 million, and an average country would require a wind farm with hundreds of turbines to supply power to all companies and households. In addition, the production cost of large solar panels is still very high, which is why many countries, especially those with a poor economy, are still unable to use this power source.

However, I still believe that shifting towards using alternative energy is a worthwhile investment due to the great benefits it brings. Firstly, fossil fuels are the main cause of air pollution nowadays since petroleum-powered vehicles and factories are releasing tremendous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere every day. Therefore, replacing coal and petroleum with wind or solar power will help to reduce the level of emissions in the atmosphere and improve air quality. Secondly, fossil fuels, like natural gas or oil, are finite resources and will soon be depleted, which will potentially threaten the economy if there are no alternative sources. This fact emphasizes the need to develop renewable energy to gradually replace traditional sources when fossil fuels inevitably run out.

In conclusion, I hold the view that despite the high initial cost of new equipment and facilities, the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources is still necessary for the long-term development of the planet.

Sample 2:

The debate around our primary sources of energy has been intensifying in recent decades, with some pushing for more sustainable energy while others arguing that fossil fuels should remain the main source of power globally. I personally think renewable energy production should be encouraged, since it’s important that nations should seek to reduce their own carbon emissions to divert the dangers of climate change as well as build a more sustainable economy.

Firstly, fossil fuel should be discouraged because it could bring about the existential threat of climate change. As a result, biodiversity is at an all-time low, with shifting climates and rising sea levels slowly eroding the delicate tapestry of food webs across the globe. As scientists are convinced this is directly the cause of human activity, such as in agriculture and fossil fuel consumption, renewable energies would help slow this threat immediately and might be our only solution to salvaging the planet.

Secondly, one could argue that renewable energies are more sustainable and would therefore be better for the economy in the long run. While oil and coal are a finite resource and take millions of years to replenish, energy from wind and solar can in theory never run out. Therefore, making a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy can be a solution that thinks of the longer term, since it could avert an economic crash when oil fully depletes. Many analysts have warned that with the current trajectory, oil could run out by 2050; when this happens, it could sharply affect the biggest economies in the world that are still heavily dependent on oil.

Overall, I argue that the climate effects as a result of fossil fuels consumption combined with the economic benefits of renewable energies mean that we should encourage the development of these forms of energy.

Sample 3:

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, have long been the dominant sources of energy in many countries. However, their extensive use has resulted in significant environmental harm, prompting the need for alternative sources of energy. In response to this, many countries are encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. This essay will discuss the reasons behind the promotion of alternative energy sources and argue that it is a positive development.

One of the key reasons for the promotion of alternative energy sources is their potential to mitigate the negative environmental impacts associated with fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, thereby reducing the contribution to climate change. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented strong incentives and subsidies to support the development of solar power, leading to a significant increase in the share of renewable energy in their energy mix. This shift towards cleaner sources of energy is driven by the recognition of the urgent need to combat climate change and reduce dependence on finite fossil fuel reserves.

The encouragement of alternative energy sources has numerous positive implications and is a positive trend. It promotes energy diversification, reducing reliance on a single energy source and increasing energy security. By harnessing the power of wind, solar, and other renewable sources, countries can decrease their vulnerability to fluctuations in fossil fuel prices and geopolitical tensions related to energy resources. Additionally, the transition to renewable energy stimulates innovation and job creation. As governments invest in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies, new industries and employment opportunities emerge.

In conclusion, the encouragement of alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, is driven by the need to address environmental concerns and promote sustainable development. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, diversifying energy sources, and fostering economic growth, the adoption of renewable energy brings numerous benefits. Therefore, it is crucial for countries to continue investing in research, technology, and policy frameworks that support the widespread adoption of renewable energy, ensuring a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.

Sample 4:

Fossil fuel, though extensively used, is not eco-friendly, and its usage comes with huge environmental costs. Considering global warming and climate change, and the detrimental effects fossil fuels have on the environment, green fuel, such as solar, hydro and wind power, is increasingly being used in many countries. It is a good thing that many countries have already started using these green power sources.

The promotion of alternative sources of energy has gained significant momentum in numerous countries because of a growing concern about the adverse effects of fossil fuels on the environment such as greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Governments and environmental organizations recognize the urgent need to transition to cleaner and more sustainable energy options. For instance, countries like Germany have implemented ambitious renewable energy targets, investing heavily in wind and solar power to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and combat climate change.

The stock of fossil fuels is limited and would get exhausted at a certain point. So, alternative and green sources, which are renewable, would be the main source of our energy in the future. Despite the shift from fossil fuel to green energy being expensive and labour-intensive, green energy like wind and solar energy is renewable, their use should be as much encouraged as possible from right now, and it is a good thing that the trend has already started. Alternative sources of power, such as solar and wind power, do not pollute the environment, have lower carbon emissions and are eco-friendly. So, their use could save the planet from the disaster of global warming which is already visible around us. Wind power and solar power are in use in countries like Denmark, Germany and France, and more and more countries are joining the list. We already have extremely efficient technology to produce solar and wind power, and the trend is quite encouraging.

To conclude, the energy demand is increasing at a fast pace, and the stock of fossil fuels is diminishing. So, we should turn to alternative green energy sources and share the technology and expertise with all nations so that the transition happens all around the world to save our otherwise dying planet due to climate change and greenhouse effects.

Sample 5:

Every year the energy demand is increasing globally. So, the strains on the current and already limited resources are high. Since these energy resources, like fossil fuels, are mostly imported by countries, some countries have opted for alternative sources of energy to enjoy greater energy security. I wholeheartedly believe that it is a positive trend.

Alternative sources of energy offer greater energy security and independence and that is why their production and use is increasing. Relying on traditional energy sources, often imported from other countries, can leave nations vulnerable to price fluctuations and geopolitical tensions. Embracing renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, geothermal, or biomass, allows countries to tap into their own natural resources and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. This is why it has already gained popularity.

Fossil fuels, like coal and oil, are not unlimited. A few countries like Germany and Japan, for example, are completely dependent on the import of such resources. For all these countries, alternative energy, also known as green energy, is the answer for the future, and it is a welcoming trend that many countries have already started producing green energy. By embracing renewable energy options, countries can address climate change, enhance energy independence, create employment opportunities, and drive technological progress. Countries like France and Norway, among others, have invested in the technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun or produce wind power. The positive impacts of this development are innumerable, and many countries are following in their footsteps.

In conclusion, the use of green energy sources is gaining traction because many countries want to become energy self-sufficient. This is definitely a positive trend as it reduces reliance on energy imports, helps countries fight climate change, advances technology and creates more employment.

Sample 6:

These days, the environment is being severely affected by the excessive use of nonrenewable energy resources, such as petrol, diesel, coal and natural gas. However, eco-friendly and renewable power sources like wind and solar power are being adopted in many countries mainly because they do not harm the environment, and I wholeheartedly think that it is a positive trend.

The shift towards renewable energy sources in many countries is primarily to fight global warming and climate change. Fossil fuels are often the reason climate change is so severe and threatens the existence of humans on the mother planet. Many countries, including Germany, Norway and France, have adopted the use of green energy like solar and wind power to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels to save the environment.

It is a positive trend as it greatly reduces the carbon content of the environment and makes the planet more sustainable. Without extensive use of green energy, we will soon transform our planet into an uninhabitable one. To save our planet from destruction, we need to produce and use more green and renewable energy. Moreover, it is cheaper to produce such clean energy than to extract coal or natural gas which makes these eco-friendly energies affordable to mass people. A recent study by Oxford University reveals that the production of solar power is 30% cheaper than that of fossil fuel. This finding again emphasizes how important it is for all nations to opt for renewable energy sources, and how beneficial it is that many countries have already invested in generating clean power.

In conclusion, even though we have harmed our mother planet to a great extent by indiscriminately using fossil fuels, some countries have already shown us a better way to produce and use power. It is expected that more countries will invest in alternative sources of energy to make the planet green again and make energy affordable for all.

Sample 7:

While fossil fuels have been the backbone of our energy supply for centuries, they have severe harmful impacts on our environment. Therefore, some countries have started relying on green energy to reverse the situation. And it is a positive trend that we have started researching and using alternative sources of energy, also known as green energy, that are sustainable and do not cause long-term damage to our environment.

One of the main reasons alternative energy sources are being used to produce green energy in many countries is their ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are a major contributor to climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, the use of renewable energy sources can help reduce global CO2 emissions by up to 70% by 2050. This is a significant step towards protecting our planet from the devastating effects of climate change, including rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.

The use of renewable sources to generate energy is a positive development for a variety of reasons. For instance, investing in renewable energy can also create jobs and boost the economy. According to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review 2020, the renewable energy sector employed around 11.5 million people worldwide in 2019, a 6% increase from the previous year. This growth in employment opportunities can help to stimulate local economies and provide new job opportunities for people in both developed and developing countries. For example, in Germany, the government's decision to phase out nuclear power plants and invest in renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has created over 300,000 jobs and contributed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, the shift towards green energy sources is a positive development that can help to protect our environment and create new job opportunities. While it may take time and investment to transition away from fossil fuels, it is a necessary step to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.

Sample 8:

Many nations are now supporting the adoption of various energy alternatives in order to reduce fossil fuel consumption. In my opinion, though there may be short-term economic downsides, this is a decidedly positive development due to the implications on the environment generally.

Those who feel the sudden adoption of alternative energies is a negative point out the financial repercussions. There are economies around the world that are currently dependent on exporting fossil fuels, in particular in The Middle East, South America, and Eastern Europe. Many of these countries are still developing and have few other natural resources or industries that could replace a decline in the energy sector. The economic effects will extend far beyond exporters though. Both developed and developing nations ranging from the United States and Vietnam to China and Russia exploit oil for private vehicles and various industries. Substituting cheap oil for a more expensive alternative might result in economic catastrophe with wide-ranging repercussions.

However, the environmental effect is overwhelmingly more important for the long-term health of the planet. The economic results of less dependence on fossil fuels will cause short-term problems but the issues caused by climate change are also becoming a present reality. For instance, there has been a rise in the number of cataclysmic natural disasters related to rising ocean temperatures and deforestation. Even more troubling are the less noticed problems such as habitats being destroyed in remote areas like Antarctica and the Amazon Rainforest. Beyond the animals becoming endangered and extinct, it is only a number of years before human life is affected. This existential threat is the reason alternative energies are a pressing need.

In conclusion, despite the economic drawbacks of a sudden shift to alternative power sources, this reorientation will have a markedly positive long-term impact on the environment. Governments should therefore implement and bolster alternative energy initiatives.

Sample 9:

The development of renewable energies like wind power, wave power, or solar energy to replace the electricity generated from burning fossil fuels has become an increasingly popular trend in the world. I believe this is a green movement in the energy sector with countless benefits that people should welcome.

The most palpable advantage one can recognize at once when mentioning renewable energies is that they reduce the burden on the environment. The use of solar power creates no emission at all, and thus provides for the need of power at almost no environmental cost. It is similarly clean and sustainable when wind, wave, and water moving around the Earth eternally can be used in energy production. Also, the independence from fossil fuels in electricity generation saves the world from a rapid depletion of coal, oil and natural gases, and slow down the imminent energy crisis which may even cause wars over energy sources among countries.

Moreover, the production of green energy also benefits individuals and the country as a whole. Thanks to less burning of fossil fuels in thermal energy plants, workers in energy companies face less risks of occupational health problems especially those related to respiratory diseases and may lead to early death. On the large scale of a country, the utilization of wind, wave, sunlight, and even geothermal heat to produce electricity will diversify the energy portfolio of different nations, making them free from reliance on limited natural resources to generate electricity due to their unfavourable geographical locations.

In conclusion, the movement of the world towards more use of renewable energy is completely positive when it solves multiple problems of environmental pollution, dependence on natural resources for energy, and poor health of workers in thermal power plants.

Sample 10:

Governments across continents have turned their attention to more sustainable sources of energy as alternatives to fossil fuels. In my opinion, this could be seen as a progress for the following reasons.

First, there is no arguing that producing energy from buried dead organisms lacks sustainability, which means such production could not guarantee the survival of humans in the long term. In fact, the consumption of energy generated from fossil fuels tends to accelerate in direct correlation with the growth of the world population. With the current rate of exploitation, this valuable resource would dwindle away in no time, leaving no other choice than seeking additional reserves such as nuclear power or hydroelectricity. This is a safe solution to the fear of energy scarcity and ensures the future development of the human race.

Second, dependence on fossil fuel for worldwide energy supply would cause environmental degradation while using solar power, for example, is considered an ultimate choice of energy conservation. The combustion of fossil fuels is the culprit of greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants, leading to tremendous damage to the environment. Such suffering of the Earth could not be justified by the growing need of humans. By contrast, this would never be the case when it comes to other alternatives as mentioned above. If governments continue to invest in exploiting those new sources, there will be an unlimited amount of inexpensive energy in the long run.

In conclusion, I believe that the use of other potential energy sources to replace fossil fuels is obviously an important step forward.

Sample 11:

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are extensively used in many countries and cause harm to the environment. The use of alternative sources of energy, including wind and solar power, however, is being encouraged in many countries. Is this a positive or negative development?

In several nations, non-renewable sources of energy, namely coal, petroleum, and gasoline, are used inordinately, which is severely damaging the ecosystem. However, other countries are promoting the usage of non-conventional sources of power, such as wind and solar energy. I personally consider that this has been a positive development because the non-traditional approach will aid in efficient energy output and protect the ecosystem from feasible hazards.

Primarily, the remarkable advantage of the aforementioned alternative sources is that they are renewable. These energy sources have a constant supply of power and there is no requirement for significant raw materials. Although it could be argued that the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is extremely high, I would assert that once the installation cost has been met with, their maintenance is practically negligible. Apart from this, it is widely accepted that fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and once consumed, they cannot be re-used. To illustrate, if modern individuals burn immense petroleum and coal, these resources are likely to vanish, and future generations would not be capable of using these precious energy sources.

Another major benefit of eco-friendly energy sources is their non-polluting nature. The intensive usage of natural resources forms carbon emissions and emits noxious gases that are nurturing global warming and depleting the ozone layer. Even worse, by inhaling such poisonous gases and carbon fumes, human beings are susceptible to various health ailments such as asthma and lung cancer. However, when energy is harnessed from wind turbines and solar panels there are no such deleterious by-products. Unlike other automobiles, for instance, commuting through a solar car would not emit carbon dioxide.

In conclusion, not only do alternative sources provide an inordinate amount of energy supply constantly, but they also preserve the environment in a very effective way. Therefore, I completely believe that this trend is a wholly positive development and one that authorities ought to promote.

Sample 12:

In this day and age, the consumption of non-renewable resources is burgeoning day by day. Owing to this it reached an alarming rate. It takes millions of years to form. However, some nations are taking a step forward and using non-conventional sources of power. This essay will highlight that this is certainly an optimistic approach that needs to be opted.

At the outset, non-conventional sources can be recycled and utilized again. Although, the use of alternative sources has some hurdles like the initial cost of setting up solar panels and wind farms is very high and these also rely on geographical locations. When masses use this energy source for a long period of time, the energy can be renewed and produced, no extra cost will have more economic benefit than the others. Besides this, the use of renewable energy could help to conserve foreign exchange and generate local employment if conservation technologies are designed, manufactured, assembled, and installed locally.

Moving further, alternative sources- wind power, tidal power, solar power – sources are totally safe for the environment, have lower carbon emission, and are eco-friendly. The research concluded that there are some countries that have utilized alternative sources namely German, France, and Denmark as these nations save the planet from a disaster of global warming. Some countries use automobile cars that work on solar power. Consequently, it has reduced the carbon footprint of such countries and made its greenery.

Based on this study it can be reiterated that the use of alternative sources of energy is an optimistic evolvement, which can save the whole globe from the catastrophic impact of greenhouse emissions as well as global warming. Furthermore, more and more folks should adopt renewable sources to ameliorate the conditions of the environment. In this way, by taking joint efforts individuals can preserve the world.

Sample 13:

Due to the shortage of fossil fuels, whether other natural power resources should be encouraged to harness or not, becomes a paramount concern for many countries. I believe, while this advancement may decrease awareness among people about protecting the fuels, it also solves the problem of the lack of energy sources.

First of all, fossil fuels which are the major energy resources in many nations are facing the threats of becoming obsolete due to the overuse by the human race in daily life. As a result, people should be encouraged to raise awareness of fuel conservation. However, the utilization of alternative natural energy sources could prevent people from doing this by reducing the fears of coal or oil that might be running out. Because there are other sources to use, they would use more energy generated from gas or oil without hesitation. In my personal opinion, the negative sides of using different resources of power could deteriorate the shortage of fuels.

Harnessing alternative power sources (such as solar or wind power), in contrast, could reduce the usage of fossil fuels in generating energy for a range of demanding activities such as heating and driving. While coal and oil mines are limited, natural resources such as wind and solar power are considered unlimited. This wind power or solar energy is consequently able to produce enough energy for human demand without the help of fossil fuels. As a result, it should be encouraged to be utilized in more countries in the world to gradually cut down the usage of fossil fuels.

To sum up, the encouragement of using natural resources (such as solar or wind) for producing energy has both negative and positive sides. However, I deem that humankind should consider using more power from solar or wind and less from coal and gas to protect the remaining parts of fossil fuels.

Sample 14:

Coals, oil, and gas are some fossil fuels that are the most common sources of energy for the majority of countries. On the other hand, some countries encourage the use of renewable resources like wind and solar energy. I believe this is a strongly positive development as we will be in grave danger if the world runs out of these natural non-renewable resources like fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are used in almost all industries and for running motor vehicles. We can minimize this by using alternatives wherever possible. If it goes on like this, we will soon have such a shortage of these fuels that can pose a threat to running things efficiently. For example, some industries can only run on coal or oil, though this is not the case for cars. Automobiles can easily run on electricity, and so we should limit the use of such fuels. Burning too much of these fossil fuels also contributes to air pollution. Thus, it is important to minimize usage wherever possible.

On the other hand, wind energy and solar energy take comparatively longer time to generate, and they are largely dependent on the sun and the wind. We do not have any control over them, so the production of goods might slow down if there is less generation of energy as we cannot, in fact, control the weather. Perhaps tropical countries, where there is an abundant amount of sunshine and wind, can be encouraged to use these natural sources and not waste fossil fuels. However, for temperate climates, this might not be an option. Dependency on nature can have slower production rates and lead to not meeting the deadline or having scarcity in the market.

On the whole, I believe all the countries should be aware of the hazards of wasting too much of our natural reserves of energy and use them consciously and responsibly. Initiatives such as building consciousness about the issue should be taken to build a more environmentally friendly atmosphere.

Sample 15:

Fossil fuels harm the environment and to save our planet we need to encourage the use of green energy. The use of alternative sources of energy, or ‘green’ energy, is a positive trend of development, and indeed their use should be encouraged further.

As the demand for energy worldwide is increasing the strains on the existing and already limited resources also increase. To solve this problem, we must consider two issues: how to better use the existing, limited fossil fuel resources and how we can encourage the use of alternative energy sources.

It is universally acknowledged that there is a limitation on the use of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil. Some countries are rich in oil deposits like OPEC, whereas China is rich in coal deposits and Russia in natural gas. Others, such as Japan and Germany, are completely dependent on the import of resources. For all countries- resource-rich versus resource-poor, alternative energy should be encouraged and utilised to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels as well as to keep the global environment in balance and ‘healthy’.

The only way is to turn to other sources to get energy supply. Wind power and solar power are at present feasible alternatives. France is one country that has the advanced technology needed to produce extremely efficient solar panels to store energy from the sun. Both kinds of power can reduce a country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Furthermore, they do not pollute the environment and in turn, help keep the ecosystem stable.

To conclude, while fossil fuel resources are diminishing, the energy demand continues to increase year after year. It is a positive trend to develop other alternative sources of power and experiences should be shared and promoted. If this switch to alternative energy is encouraged early enough, then we may yet avoid the pending energy crisis and environmental disaster.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

It is argued that watching television has an adverse impact on children, whereas other people believe that it brings various benefits to them. I personally agree with the second group.

On the one hand, there are a number of reasons why some people think that children’s development would be negatively affected by watching TV. The first reason is that sitting in front of TV screens for too long is detrimental to children’s health. Many kids these days suffer from various health problems such as obesity, eye strain or fatigue due to prolonged television watching. Another reason is that many TV programmes and movies contain violent contents or sexual images which are inappropriate for children to watch. Heavy exposure to violent movies can put a child at a higher risk of violent behaviour, which could ruin their future.

On the other hand, I personally believe that television has an essential role to play in the development of children. Watching educational TV programmes gives children the opportunity to widen their horizons and enrich their knowledge of the world they live in. Planet Earth and Discovery Channel are prime examples. Their programmes not only take the viewer into unknown natural habitats which are home to various plants and animals, but also educate them about the importance of preserving the wonders of the Earth. In addition, many TV shows and channels provide children with limitless knowledge of almost every aspect of life. A programme called ‘Talent show for kids?’, for example, not only gives children enjoyable moments but also informs them about various subjects.

In conclusion, although some people say that watching TV is harmful to children, I would argue that it is very beneficial for them.

Sample 2:

The matter of screen time for children is open to debate, with some arguing against it while others highlight the benefits it could bring. This essay will examine both stances and present my personal opinion on the issue.

There exist certain health risks associated with TV-viewing for children. In terms of physical health conditions, excessive screen time can result in a wide range of health problems, from eye strain and back pain from prolonged periods in front of the TV, to weight gain and lethargy due to lack of exercise. These risks are also present in the adult population, but much more worrying for young children, who often lack self-control and thus are more prone to addiction. Regarding their mental well-being, children could develop behavioural problems from exposure to explicit content on screen, especially when there is no parental control installed on the device. The effects of violent or sexual acts on young minds are well- documented, with disobedience, aggression, and risk-taking tendencies being the most common issues.

Nevertheless, the advantages of watching TV for children should not be dismissed. One of the most significant benefits is language acquisition. The availability of shows in native tongue or foreign languages, coupled with subtitles and audio-visual aids, allows young children to grasp new vocabulary, as well as its usage. In fact, many children in Vietnam have eagerly learned English from watching shows from channels like Disney and Cartoon Network. Aside from language, TV shows also offer knowledge on numerous areas, including science, environment, history, etc. Vivid imagery and amusing delivery of hosts on kids' educational shows can help children better understand difficult concepts like multiplication compared to traditional textbooks.

In conclusion, after considering both sides of the argument, I believe that children stand to benefit academically from TV shows; however, to minimise the potential drawbacks of screen time, parental guidance and supervision are needed.

Sample 3:

It is pointed out that some individuals believe that viewing television apparently has an adverse bearing on children, while others argue that it brings numerous benefits. This essay discusses both points of view before shedding light on why I side with the latter view.

On the one hand, watching television is conspicuously conductive to children in terms of inventiveness and also enhances language development. To begin with, conveying knowledge through television gives children exposure to a plethora of cultures and perspectives, hence fostering creativity through imaginative storytelling. It is apparent that some television programmes such as Cartoon Network often feature interactive activities and problem-solving challenges, and thus inspire children to think outside the box and explore their creativity. Furthermore, the collosal of children's TV programs incorporate repetition, which is a key element in language reception. To elaborate further, repeated interaction with words, sentences and concepts helps reinforce learning and thus linguistic development.

On the other hand, viewing television takes a toll on children in terms of their mental and also physical health. To start with, TV shows have a lot of negative content that cannot be avoided and thus when the children are exposed to this content such as pornagraphy content that directly affects people who are almost in puberty. A propelling testament of the harmful impact that exposure to erotic material can be captivating to their developing minds, potentially evoking sexual desires that could lead to annulment for their mind and also their mental health. Moreover, viewing television can have disadvantages for children due to binge-watching and prolonged exposure to screen time, which may lead to sedentary behavior and a lack of physical activity. As a result, excessive TV watching can impact attention span, interfere with sleep patterns and even nearsightedness.

In conclusion, both perspectives hold their justifications. From my point of view, I firmly believe that prioritizing their health for the long-term life should outweigh the sake of television brings. Ultimately, moderation and content selection are key.

Sample 4:

In today’s modern society, the issue of whether watching television is beneficial or detrimental to children has sparked a controversial debate. While some individuals argue that television viewing has negative effects on youngsters, I firmly believe that it can be an educational tool for children. In this essay, I will present my reasons to support this viewpoint.

Firstly, television offers a wide range of educational programs that can enhance children’s knowledge and cognitive development. Channels dedicated to educational content, such as documentaries, science programs, and historical shows, provide valuable information that can expand children’s understanding of the world. By watching these programs, children can learn about diverse cultures, scientific concepts, and historical events, fostering their intellectual growth. For instance, renowned educational programs like “Planet Earth” or “Cosmos” captivate young audiences and expose them to the wonders of nature and the universe.

Secondly, television can serve as a powerful medium to promote creativity and imagination among children. Many animated series and children’s shows encourage imaginative thinking and storytelling. By watching these programs, youngsters can be inspired to create their own stories, draw pictures, or engage in imaginative play. This imaginative process is crucial for their cognitive and emotional development, allowing them to explore their creativity and express themselves in unique ways. Moreover, educational cartoons often incorporate moral lessons, teaching children important values such as honesty, empathy, and teamwork.

However, it is important to acknowledge the potential drawbacks of excessive television viewing. Parents should exercise responsible supervision and ensure that children have a balanced viewing experience. Excessive exposure to violent or inappropriate content can have adverse effects on children’s behavior and mental well-being. Therefore, parents should guide their children’s television choices, set limits on screen time, and encourage participation in other activities such as outdoor play, reading, or social interaction.

In conclusion, despite the concerns raised by some individuals, I am of the opinion that watching television can be educational for children. The availability of educational programs and the promotion of creativity and imagination outweigh the potential negative effects. However, parental guidance and responsible viewing habits are crucial to ensure a well-rounded development for children. By striking a balance between television viewing and other activities, children can benefit from the educational and imaginative aspects of television while avoiding its potential pitfalls.

Sample 5:

There is much debate regarding the effects of TV viewing on children. In my opinion, when watched in moderation, educational TV shows can be beneficial for children because they help them develop positive values as they grow up.

On the one hand, those who believe that TV viewing harms children in every way may argue that it is a passive activity that encourages sedentary behavior and limits meaningful play. This can lead to a range of problems, such as poor health and cognitive development. However, I believe that this argument is only valid if children spend too much time in front of the screen. Parents can protect their children from the potential dangers of TV viewing by setting reasonable time limits and providing adequate supervision.

On the other hand, there are people who argue that many TV programs are educational and can instill good values in children. For example, Disney movies often portray characters with admirable traits, such as courage, kindness, and perseverance, which can inspire children to emulate these values and become better individuals. This has led me to believe that educational & television programs can be excellent tools for teaching children moral lessons as they grow and develop. Many children find traditional forms of education boring or difficult, but the visual and interactive nature of TV can make learning more engaging and enjoyable.

In conclusion, although prolonged passive television viewing can be detrimental, watching educational TV shows in moderation can have a positive impact on children's development. Such shows can effectively impart valuable lessons and teach positive values in an engaging and entertaining manner.

Sample 6:

The role of television in children's development has been a subject of ongoing debate, with some individuals vehemently opposing it, while others advocate for its potential benefits. From my perspective, television can be beneficial if appropriately utilised.

Those who argue against children watching television often raise valid points. Primarily, they cite the negative impacts on children's physical health as a concern. With prolonged screen time, children are less likely to engage in physical activity, potentially leading to health issues such as obesity. Furthermore, they worry about the influence of harmful content. Children, being impressionable, can easily internalise violent or inappropriate behaviour depicted in certain shows, leading to negative behavioural outcomes.

On the other hand, advocates for children's television viewing highlight its educational benefits. Many television programmes are designed to be both entertaining and instructive, providing children with a wealth of knowledge about the world, aiding their cognitive development. Shows that portray different cultures, wildlife, or scientific concepts can stimulate children's curiosity and broaden their understanding. Television can also teach moral values and social skills through well-crafted narratives and character interactions.

In my opinion, the key lies in moderation and guidance. While unrestricted, unmonitored television viewing can indeed have detrimental effects, a balanced approach can turn television into a valuable educational tool. Parents and caregivers should control the amount of screen time and ensure that the content children watch is age-appropriate and beneficial.

In conclusion, while the concerns about children watching television are justified, its potential as a developmental tool cannot be dismissed. The onus is on parents and caregivers to utilise it judiciously to foster a balanced growth environment for children.

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Vietjack official store
Đăng ký gói thi VIP

VIP +1 - Luyện thi tất cả các đề có trên Website trong 1 tháng

  • Hơn 100K đề thi thử, đề minh hoạ, chính thức các năm
  • Với 2tr+ câu hỏi theo các mức độ Nhận biết, Thông hiểu, Vận dụng
  • Tải xuống đề thi [DOCX] với đầy đủ đáp án
  • Xem bài giảng đính kèm củng cố thêm kiến thức
  • Bao gồm tất cả các bậc từ Tiểu học đến Đại học
  • Chặn hiển thị quảng cáo tăng khả năng tập trung ôn luyện

Mua ngay

VIP +3 - Luyện thi tất cả các đề có trên Website trong 3 tháng

  • Hơn 100K đề thi thử, đề minh hoạ, chính thức các năm
  • Với 2tr+ câu hỏi theo các mức độ Nhận biết, Thông hiểu, Vận dụng
  • Tải xuống đề thi [DOCX] với đầy đủ đáp án
  • Xem bài giảng đính kèm củng cố thêm kiến thức
  • Bao gồm tất cả các bậc từ Tiểu học đến Đại học
  • Chặn hiển thị quảng cáo tăng khả năng tập trung ôn luyện

Mua ngay

VIP +6 - Luyện thi tất cả các đề có trên Website trong 6 tháng

  • Hơn 100K đề thi thử, đề minh hoạ, chính thức các năm
  • Với 2tr+ câu hỏi theo các mức độ Nhận biết, Thông hiểu, Vận dụng
  • Tải xuống đề thi [DOCX] với đầy đủ đáp án
  • Xem bài giảng đính kèm củng cố thêm kiến thức
  • Bao gồm tất cả các bậc từ Tiểu học đến Đại học
  • Chặn hiển thị quảng cáo tăng khả năng tập trung ôn luyện

Mua ngay

VIP +12 - Luyện thi tất cả các đề có trên Website trong 12 tháng

  • Hơn 100K đề thi thử, đề minh hoạ, chính thức các năm
  • Với 2tr+ câu hỏi theo các mức độ Nhận biết, Thông hiểu, Vận dụng
  • Tải xuống đề thi [DOCX] với đầy đủ đáp án
  • Xem bài giảng đính kèm củng cố thêm kiến thức
  • Bao gồm tất cả các bậc từ Tiểu học đến Đại học
  • Chặn hiển thị quảng cáo tăng khả năng tập trung ôn luyện

Mua ngay