Câu hỏi:

10/01/2025 131

Improvements in health, education and trade are essential for the development of poorer nations. However, the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 1:

People have different views about how to ameliorate health, education, and trade for the poorer nations. Many argue that the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for helping the poorer nations in such areas. I somewhat agree that action is necessary to help these poorer countries in such areas; however, I think that the main role in improving these areas still belongs to these poorer countries.

The first reason why I think the governments of wealthier countries should help the needier countries is for humanity. First, nowadays the world is increasingly reaching progress and civilization, so humanity is no longer confined within a country or territory but in the world. Therefore, helping poorer countries to get improvements in health, education, and trade is one of the great humanitarian actions. Moreover, this helps to shorten the gap between rich and poor as well as increase solidarity among countries, contributing to maintaining international peace and security.

Another reason is aiding the more indigent nations to improve health, education and trade will help developed countries define their positions and power of voice internationally. The USA, for example, has supported African countries in resisting Ebola or Zika epidemic, which helps this country define its big role all over the world. Moreover, supporting other poorer countries to develop such areas helps wealthier nations take advantage of advertising their achievements in health, education, and trade, which helps them get many economic benefits from investment in such areas.

However, I also think that poorer nations should find solutions to achieve ameliorations in health, education, and trade. Firstly, finding ways to get improvements in such areas will help these countries give away the dependence on the economy and politics of wealthy countries. Secondly, finding the solution to improvements in health, education, and trade will not only encourage citizens’ creation in utilizing domestic resources to develop their countries but also help these countries define their ability and reaffirm their positions in comparison with other countries.

In conclusion, I somewhat agree that the governments of richer nations should take more responsibility for assisting the poorer nations out of their difficult conditions in such areas for humanity, their positions, and the power of voice worldwide. However, I also believe that these poorer countries should find solutions to achieve improvements in health, education, and trade.

Sample 2:

The advancement of third-world countries is feasible by appropriate underpinning. The first and foremost way is to procure aid from the administration of first-world countries. However, this will swiftly settle several proceedings, eventually, I am in complete unison with such a viewpoint. My preference is justified further in the ensuing paragraphs with logical examples.

To begin with, wealthy countries have a moral obligation to help underprivileged people, which is one of the reasons. Developed countries help people only when neighboring countries are suffering from health, education, and trade issues. For example, you can contribute by building a school in a non-developed nation. One can also have the opportunity to send doctors and nurses to support their health standards. This allows administrations to secure stricter trade agreements to support the economies of developing countries. The world will become a better place when wealthy nations fulfill their promises and make fair contributions.

Moreover, the vast majority of third-world countries in this day and age have historically prepared at the expense of developing countries. This is another reason why developed nations need to support developing nations. For instance, popular European countries once illegally searched for gold and diamond deposits in Africa. As a result of this, it would only be correct to support the educational needs of these countries by awarding scholarships to the right students. In addition to this, funding may be provided to help improve healthcare systems and seminars are held to educate business owners in developing nations.

In conclusion, developing medical, educational, and business infrastructure is the only way to help poorer countries improve. Additionally, the guiding hand of wealthy nations can assist them in achieving their objective. It will not only speed up the process of progress but also it will help them to discover their route to survive.

Sample 3:

In today’s society, certain underdeveloped nations are struggling to promote the fundamental rights of residents, such as access to health care and education. Supporting the improvements in living standards in developed countries benefits society in many ways. My preference is explained in the following paragraph with appropriate examples.

To begin with, in the age of globalization, a country’s happiness can offer the global economy. Therefore, rich countries should help developing countries benefit. Firstly, rich countries should try to improve conditions in the world's public schools and hospitals. The construction of schools and hospitals will ensure the provision of essential needs for all. For example, schools and hospitals are in bad shape in all the third-world areas. Secondly, governments of rich countries can help improve education systems in developing countries. Developed nations often have well–equipped health care and education facilities employing highly qualified specialists. They can send teachers and doctors for training.

As an alternative, every government must look out for its citizens. However, it might be exceedingly challenging for governments to quickly improve living circumstances without any outside help. For instance, nations can obtain loans. In addition, the administration should also use more funds on the development of the infrastructure rather than spending it more on the equipment for army offers, museums, and other sources and should focus more on uplifting the nation.

In conclusion, I think that everyone should support one another. Additionally, allocating money to help may not have a substantial negative impact on the economy of a developed country while significantly enhancing lives in a different nation.

Sample 4:

Some experts suggest that the wealthy nations of the world help the impoverished countries in trade and commerce, health as well as in education. I am in complete unison with the viewpoint. My preference is justified further with reasons and examples.

The foremost argument to explain my opinion is, that the underdeveloped nations can be uplifted if the rich countries do some amount of business with them. The poor countries can improve their economies by selling raw materials to rich countries and by buying industrialized goods in return. india ‘s economy was in the bracket of underdeveloped nations, it progressed by conducting expensive trade of wheat, potato, tea, spices, and other goods which has eventually made her one of the most promising developing nations. Additionally, the affluent countries can support the needed nations with education. They can donate computers, and books, help in building schools, train teachers and thus support for a long-term cause.

On the flip side, some others counterclaim that the poor countries are themselves responsible for their progress and issues. They must manage the economy and make appropriate efforts to improve the health and education sectors by taking loans from the world bank or the rich countries.

To culminate the discussion, it is commented that indeed the wealthy nations must help the poorer ones. The leaders of the industrialized nations play a decisive role in essential areas and help to make the world a better place. Where all have food, good health, and some income to remain happy. 

Sample 5:

Undoubtedly governments of developed nations should share the responsibility of helping less fortunate nations. Different measures exist, ranging from market access to direct financial payments or even medical assistance. This essay will explain why certain measures are inherently better than other methods.

Firstly, the most adequate way to assist the lesser developed countries is not through health or education ‘hand-outs’. This method is flawed and only offers temporary relief from long-term challenges; also, this assistance can be cut at any moment, leaving the country stranded.

For example, economic help from the UK to disadvantaged regions in Africa has gradually been reduced since the onset of the financial crisis. Although some parts of the continent may be better educated or in better health, the benefit was short lived, thus leaving the countries of Africa to look for other donors.

Commerce is without doubt the most essential type of assistance that can be given. If the less developed country has the opportunity to develop trade, then it will build strong capabilities to serve it for the long term. These strengths can develop the local economy and are more reliable than education or health.

For example, while trading with the richer country, the government can search for other foreign markets to trade with. This would offer more stability and diversification for the nation.

To conclude, assistance is definitely necessary for the poorer regions; however, ‘hand-outs’ are short-term solutions. The optimum solution is to offer market access so the region can produce products and generate the regular income.

Sample 6:

Health, education and trade are the keys to the sustainable development of the developing countries. However, there has been heated debate about whether the governments of developed nations ought to place responsibility for aiding the poorer countries in these sectors. I firmly believe rich nations should step forward to help underdeveloped nations to be lifted out of the poverty trap.

To commence with, healthcare is without a doubt something we are entitled to; it is our basic right to have access to healthcare. For hundreds of thousands of people, however, it is simply not a right, but a luxury. Societies devastated by civil wars and grinding poverty do not have access to healthcare; even the most primary medical supplies are out of reach for those vulnerable people. In countries like Yemen, health aid can go a long way towards ameliorating poverty and helping underprivileged people in their time of need.

Similarly, education is an essential right that we all believe we are also entitled to. Education can play a paramount role in an individual’s personal development and society as a whole. It paves the way for job prospects and can help those disadvantaged people in severe poverty. Not only does education alleviate an individual’s condition, but also improve their community. Therefore, rich nations should launch programmes that teach specific skills set that poor people can use to find work. Likewise, aid for trade creates a window of opportunity for developing countries, particularly for the least developed countries. Many poorer nations encounter trade-related infrastructural obstacles which constrain their potentiality to engage in global trade. However, trade and commerce is likely to stimulate economic growth and can eradicate poverty eventually.

In fine, the best way to help poorer countries is to improve the holy trinity of health, education and trade. Therefore, richer countries should embark on aid projects in these areas so as to ward off poverty.

Sample 7:

It goes without saying that health, education and commerce take the centre stage in the sustainable development of the Third World countries. People, however, are deeply divided on the issue of whether developed countries ought to shoulder more responsibility for aiding the developing countries in those sectors. In this case, I firmly disagree with the opinion expressed, and I will explain why.

First and foremost, recipient countries do not have the primary institutional capacity to carry out aid projects supported by rich nations. Therefore, they cannot manage the development programmes because of the lack of robust institutions and for corruptions. A case in point is Nigeria. The country still cannot ward poverty off despite receiving a substantial amount of foreign aid for the last three decades. So offering aids is not a viable solution.

Secondly, overseas assistance, in most cases, fuels corruption and entrenches authoritarian regimes consequently. The development aids are channelled into politicizing economies rather than aid projects, like a hospital, school and economic zone for example. Ultimately, the money spent to suppress political opponents, like sub-Saharan Africa for instance. In addition to this, trade proposals face vehement opposition from the powerful vested interests.

Last but not least, foreign aid promotes a culture of dependency. Donor countries try to play an unwanted role in shaping the politics and economy of the host country. Consequently, it reduces the quality of governance. A good example here is ‘Zimbabwe’. The country has a long history of aid dependency. The major risk here is that the rich country has the political leverage, which in turn shapes the policy of the recipient country that serves the donor country ultimately.

To draw conclusion, foreign assistance often puts a curse on the recipient countries. Therefore, aids in selective sectors by the rich countries are not going to change the future of poorer nations unless those poor nations themselves try to improve their fate.

Sample 8:

Enhancing healthcare, education, and trade is indispensable for the progress of developing nations; nevertheless, it is the duty of political leaders in developed countries to assume responsibility for supporting impoverished nations in these domains. Despite international cooperation is crucial, I completely disagree with the notion because the primary obligation rests with the governments of economically disadvantaged countries.

Firstly, it is the duty of national governments to prioritize the well-being and progress of their citizens. To brief, they possess the authority to enact policies, allocate resources, and establish frameworks that promote economic growth, education, and healthcare, empowering central administration to take ownership of their development agenda and tailor strategies to their unique needs and priorities. Additionally, fostering good governance, transparency, and accountability within poorer nations is crucial for effective development. By building strong institutions and addressing corruption and mismanagement, governments can create an environment conducive to sustainable development and attract both domestic and foreign investment.

Furthermore, affluent nations can fulfill a supportive role by extending financial assistance, sharing technical expertise, and implementing capacity-building programs, thereby bolstering the capabilities of economically disadvantaged nations to tackle challenges within these sectors. Moreover, international cooperation can promote fair trade practices and create an enabling environment for economic growth in deprived countries. The elimination of trade barriers, the provision of preferential market entry, and the facilitation of skill development and technology transfer can play a pivotal role in promoting economic progress in underprivileged nations. By fostering mutually advantageous alliances, affluent and reliant nations can cultivate collaborative endeavors that facilitate sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty.

In conclusion, I firmly concur that local governments should assume the primary responsibility for promoting sustainable progress in impoverished countries, with wealthier nations providing crucial financial support and trade opportunities to foster growth.

Sample 9:

Many underdeveloped countries nowadays face serious problems trying to provide their citizens with decent education and health facilities, as well as in other areas like trade. However, I disagree that developed nations ought to support these countries and think they should try to stand on their own feet instead.

It is usually possible for poor countries to raise enough money to overcome their predicaments since the source of their shortcomings is usually deep corruption and domestic mismanagement, which have resulted in their funds being embezzled by dishonest officials and their affairs in areas like education, health and trade run by unqualified authorities. If they are in need of support in such areas, they should first make an effort to eradicate the abovementioned issues before asking for aid from the outside world.

Furthermore, the money that the governments of developed countries have belongs to their citizens because it originates from their taxes, customs duties, and national resources. It should therefore be spent on providing better facilities like health centres and universities, and improving business environments for their own citizens, not for people living elsewhere in the world.

Some may argue that the decline in living conditions in developing countries could result in the migration of their citizens to developed countries in search of a better life, which involves serious financial and cultural concerns for rich nations. However, public investment in improving border control and defense structures can render these concerns insignificant.

In conclusion, I think developed countries should not aid poor countries, as their funds should be invested in the betterment of life for their own citizens. Undeveloped nations can often overcome their shortcomings in commerce, health and education on their own through eliminating corrupt officials and improving their management practices.

Sample 10:

Today's world has been divided into developing and industrialised countries, the main difference between them is the amount of money that governments apply in important sectors such as education, health and commerce. Most of the poorer nations are buried in debts as a result of their unbalanced finances which are reflected in a failed health care, an unstructured education system and a weak international trade. This vicious cycle will continue indefinitely unless wealthier nations show interest in minimizing the worldwide economic differences, as well as taking more responsibility for assisting less fortunate countries.

Most of the African countries live in sub-human conditions because of the extreme poverty, upheaval, hunger, disease, unemployment, lack of education and both inexperienced and corrupt administrations. The devastating consequences of the AIDS epidemic in those countries could improve if the infected population were to receive free drugs to control the disease, have access to health professionals and get information on how to prevent its spread. But this can only be achieved through international help programs in which leaders of the world's richest countries donate medicine and also send doctors and nurses to treat and educate those in need.

Moreover, most of the poor countries rely on selling agricultural products and raw materials to rich nations and buying industrialized products from them, resulting in a huge financial deficit. Consequently, they borrow a significant amount of money from the World Bank to try to improve their broken economies, but sometimes the money disappears with no significant changes, and they cannot even pay the bank interest. Regarding this issue, last year, G8, which is comprised of leaders of the eight richest nations, decided to forgive billions of dollars worth of debt owed by the world's poorest nations. In addition, they developed adequate loan programs to financially assist those countries.

In conclusion, leaders of the industrialised countries play an indispensable role in assisting developing nations in dealing with essential areas such as health, education and trade. Also, their aid is the key to breaking the vicious cycle, which results in poverty and death.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Many young people work on a voluntary basis, and this can only be beneficial for both the individual and society as a whole. However, I do not agree that we should therefore force all teenagers to do unpaid work.

Most young people are already under enough pressure with their studies, without being given the added responsibility of working in their spare time. School is just as demanding as a full-time job, and teachers expect their students to do homework and exam revision on top of attending lessons every day. When young people do have some free time, we should encourage them to enjoy it with their friends or to spend it doing sports and other leisure activities. They have many years of work ahead of them when they finish their studies.

At the same time, I do not believe that society has anything to gain from obliging young people to do unpaid work. In fact, I would argue that it goes against the values of a free and fair society to force a group of people to do something against their will. Doing this can only lead to resentment amongst young people, who would feel that they were being used, and parents, who would not want to be told how to raise their children. Currently, nobody is forced to volunteer, and this is surely the best system.

In conclusion, teenagers may choose to work for free and help others, but in my opinion, we should not make this compulsory.

Sample 2:

Some individuals nowadays feel that youngsters should accomplish unpaid volunteer work in their leisure time for the benefit of society. I completely believe that it is critical to involve children in volunteer activity. The primary issues will be discussed with examples in this essay.

To begin with, teenagers who participate in unpaid employment are more responsible for local society. When adolescents interact with other individuals, they become aware of the issues that people face daily, such as poverty, pollution, and others. Furthermore, we have all been affected by the present COVID-19 outbreak, and many people have suffered a loss. According to "The Voice of Vietnam - VOV” a volunteer who is anti-virus and empathizes with the mental pain that the patients are experiencing, he always gives oxygen and food to those who need it the most. As a result, volunteering helps students become the most responsible citizens in the country.

Furthermore, unpaid employment can assist youngsters in broadening their social contacts and developing soft skills. Because when they work in an unpaid job, they will meet a variety of individuals and acquire a range of skills and abilities from others, such as leadership, teamwork, communication, and dealing with challenging situations. For example, a recent study in Japan discovered that students who participate in volunteer work are more sociable, enthusiastic, and tolerant of others. They will grow more extroverted, energetic, and hard-working as compared to youngsters who do not perform unpaid employment.

To conclude, I feel that rather than paying, young people should perform unpaid social work because they can acquire many important skills and are more responsible to society.

Sample 3:

There is a growing debate about whether all adolescents should be asked to perform mandatory volunteer work in their leisure time to help assist the surrounding area. Although there are a variety of benefits associated with this topic, there are also some notable drawbacks, as will now be discussed.

The advantages of teenagers doing voluntary work are self-evident. The first relevant idea is work experience. A valid illustration of this would be to increase their tangible skills. For example, an adolescent who volunteers to help in a customer service department will learn how to communicate effectively with people in different age groups. On a psychological level, the youth’s life skills will also be enhanced by having empathy towards others. This can be demonstrated by volunteering and assisting families living in low socio-economic backgrounds with their day-to-day tasks.

There are, however, also drawbacks that need to be considered. On an intellectual level, the teenager may get distracted from their study. This situation, for instance, can be seen when voluntary work is also being undertaken during school terms. There would be time constraints for both areas. On a physiological level, youth might experience fatigue as they are unaware of the acceptable working or volunteering hours and, as a result, sometimes they can be overworked.

In summary, we can see that this is clearly a complex issue as there are significant advantages and disadvantages. I personally believe that it would be better not to encourage the youths to do compulsory work because their studies might take them to a higher level in society, whereas volunteering could restrict this progress.

Sample 4:

Children are the backbone of every country. So, there are people who tend to believe that youngsters should be encouraged to initiate social work as it will result in flourished society and individualistic growth of youngsters themselves. I, too, believe that this motivation has more benefits than its drawbacks.

To begin with, social work by children can be easily associated with personality development because, during this drive, they tend to communicate with the variety of people, which leads to polished verbal skills. For example, if they start convincing rural people to send their children to school, they have to adopt a convincing attitude along with developed verbal skills to deal with the diverse kinds of people they encounter. This improved skill will help them lifelong in every arena. Apart from this, the true values of life like tolerance, patience, team spirit, and cooperation can be learned. Besides that, young minds serve the country with full enthusiasm that gives the feeling of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. This sense of worthiness boosts their self-confidence and patriotic feelings. Moreover, experiencing multiple cultures and traditions broadens their horizons and adds another feather to their cap.

However, it is truly said, no rose without thrones. Can the drawbacks of this initiation be ignored? Children go to school, participate in different curriculum activities, endure the pressure of peers, parents, and teachers and in the competitive world, they should not be expected to serve society without their self-benefits. This kind of pressure might bring resentment in their mind.

In conclusion, I believe, the notion of a teenager doing unpaid work is indeed good but proper monitoring and care should be given to avoid untoward consequences.

Sample 5:

Youngsters are the building blocks of the nation and they play an important role in serving society because at this age they are full of energy not only mentally but physically also. Some people think that the youth should do some voluntary work for society in their free time, and it would be beneficial for both of them. I agree with the statement. It has numerous benefits which will be discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.

To begin with, they could do a lot of activities and make their spare time fruitful. First of all, they can teach children to live in slum areas because they are unable to afford education in schools or colleges. As a result, they will become civilized individuals and do not indulge in antisocial activities. By doing this they could gain a lot of experience and become responsible towards society. It would be beneficial in their future perspective.

In addition to this, they learn a sense of cooperation and sharing with other people of the society. for instance, they could grow plants and trees at public places, and this would be helpful not only to make the surrounding clean and green but reduce the pollution also to great extent. Moreover, they could arrange awareness programmes in society and set an example among the natives of the state. This will make the social bonding strong between the individuals and this will also enhance their social skills.

In conclusion, they can “kill two birds with one stone” because it has a great advantage both for the society and for the adolescents. Both the parents, as well as teachers, should encourage the teens to take part in the activities of serving the community in their free time.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke wherever they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sides in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

Sample 2:

The earlier we can ban smoking in public places, the better it would be for humankind. Having foreseen the same, many offices and governing bodies imposed a strict ban on public smoking. This measure is generally applauded by the majority of mass. However, the opposing minority interrupts this ban as an act of arrest on one's free will. Let us discuss this moot issue below.

It is generally agreed and even proven with scientific studies, that smoking is injurious to health. The health problems that smoking can induce are numerous. Cancer is among the major detrimental effects of smoking on one’s health. As clearly shown on cigarette packages, smoking is a primary cause of cancer. Furthermore, the effects of smoking on the systemic and peripheral circulation in the human body are appalling, as put forward by medical experts. The havoc of this insane habit is so horrifying that research points towards its possible harmful effects on unborn children, even. Smoking is considered as a culprit among the many, behind congenital birth defects and anomalies.

Another factor significant to this context would be the financial constraints imposed by smoking. In many developing countries, where people work on daily wages, the habit of smoking has an atrocious impact on their quality of life. In the majority of the mediocre families, around the world, smoking drains the significant part of their family budgets. For example, I witnessed many problems with reference to my father being a chronic smoker and the financial crisis it caused.

The amount of carbon and other toxic elements exhaled into the atmosphere by active smokers has reached such dizzy heights that its effect on passive smokers is more or less a reality now. In fact, the effect of first-hand smoke is seen permeable to even the second and third-hand smokers in the spectrum. The significance of the public ban on smoking is not just justifying but a necessity as it calls for. As a result, it is widely banned in some offices and institutions. Awareness programmes are being conducted all around the world against this habit.

Though the public ban on smoking is an individual constraint to one's freedom, considering the passive effects of smoking I would strongly agree with the ban. In my view, this would be a punitive measure to safeguard the health and wealth of the public or the society.

Sample 3:

Smoking has inevitably been a concern of governments around the globe considering how to manage and educate smoking people. This is due largely to the danger of the substance contained in cigarettes, nicotine. As its drawback may also occur for the people near the smokers, policies related to this, particularly in public places, should be taken into account; whether it should be banned or not.

I personally think that forbidding such a dangerous activity will be much more beneficial, as it can prevent others from developing a vulnerable respiratory system. Moreover, this can keep the places so clean that people could always find them fascinating with less air pollution. However, governments should consciously provide some special places which, in this case, can be used for smoking.

On the other hand, people who have currently become addicted to smoke would find it hard to avoid smoking in such places. As a result, they may smoke, breaking the rule and not even feeling guilty. For this reason, there are two steps then to encounter this probable emerging problem. First, some strict laws and appropriate punishments, such as to pay more tax or to give any charity orphans or others needing. Second, education is one of the most prominent and essential ways to change people’s belief in terms of having their cigarette burnt.

However, banning such activity in public places is not merely a way to prevent others from harming smoke, but it will, to a larger extent, possibly be able to elevate people’s awareness of how dangerous smoking is.

To sum up, despite it being difficult for smokers to quit, the policy which bans smoking in public places should be applied in order to save others. Nonetheless, people’s education in terms of the drawbacks of smoking is a part of this aim.

Sample 4:

Smoking has been a major public health issue for decades, and despite numerous efforts to discourage the habit, it continues to be a prevalent problem in society. Not only does smoking harm the individual who partakes in the habit, but it also poses a significant risk to those who are in close proximity to the smoker. For this reason, many argue that smoking should be banned in public places in order to protect the health and well-being of the general population.

First and foremost, it is widely known that smoking causes a myriad of health issues for the individual who smokes. From lung cancer to heart disease, the negative impact of smoking on one's health is undeniable. However, what is often overlooked is the fact that secondhand smoke can also have serious consequences for non-smokers. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), secondhand smoke contains over 7,000 chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and about 70 that can cause cancer. When non-smokers are exposed to these harmful chemicals, they are at an increased risk for developing the same health issues as smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory problems. This means that not only are smokers jeopardizing their own health, but they are also putting those around them in harm's way.

Furthermore, smoking in public places can have a negative impact on the overall environment. Cigarette butts, which are the most common form of litter, contain toxic chemicals that can leach into the soil and water, posing a threat to wildlife and polluting the ecosystem. In addition, the smoke itself contributes to air pollution, which can have detrimental effects on the environment and public health. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can reduce the amount of secondhand smoke that non-smokers are exposed to and mitigate the environmental impact of smoking.

While some may argue that a ban on smoking in public places infringes upon an individual's right to smoke, it is important to consider the greater good of the population. The potential health risks and environmental impact of smoking far outweigh the desire of an individual to smoke in public spaces. By implementing a ban on smoking in public places, we can protect the health and well-being of both smokers and non-smokers, as well as the environment.

In conclusion, smoking not only harms the smoker, but also poses a significant risk to those who are nearby. With the potential health risks and environmental impact in mind, it is clear that smoking should be banned in public places. By doing so, we can create a healthier and safer environment for all members of society.

Sample 5:

In the present era, there is a rising trend of smoking, especially among the younger generation. Smoking has evident detrimental effects on both the smoker and the people in his surroundings. It is claimed that smoking should be prohibited in public areas. I strongly agree that smoking should be banned publicly to prevent its negative aspects on people.

To begin, there are many drawbacks of smoking which have progressive impacts on both individual and environmental level. First and foremost, it increases the risk of many health related issues in human beings, due to presence of disease producing chemicals in tobacco . For instance, a rising trend of lung related diseases, like tuberculosis and lung cancer, has been reported in smokers. Furthermore, smoke not only damages the body of the smoker, but also results in many unfavourable outcomes in the surrounding people. Moreover, it is very distressful and challenging for non-smokers to work in smoking places. So, there is urgent need to halt smoking in populated areas.

There is, however, a faction that claims that there are some challenges in preventing public smoking. Firstly, many resources will be consumed to construct specified smoking areas to restrict smoking at workplace and other public places. Simultaneously, there might be no checks and balances on people who are constrained to stay in specific smoking places.

To recapitulate, although there are few disadvantages of stopping people from smoking publicly, it has many beneficial impacts. I strongly agree to halt smoking in populated areas because it will remarkably decline the percentage of health related problems. Moreover, in the same way, it can aid in developing a comfortable environment at the workplace, as well as at other public places like shopping malls, restaurants and public transport.

Sample 6:

In the contemporary era, it is a moot point that smoking has detrimental effects on the smoker as well as the people living around him. A significant chunk of the community welcomes the conception, whereas the remaining members oppose the same. In this essay, I will explain this point of view in detail with the relevant examples to support my argument.

I am in agreement to a large extent with the aforementioned notion. Multifarious reasons can be discussed to justify my stance. The most conspicuous one is the smoker himself welcomes deadly diseases like cancer (mouth and lungs), kidney failure to his body. For instance, a cigarette contains killing components like tobacco, nicotine, and carbon monoxide these destroy the airbus of the lungs. As a consequence, a person’s digestive system starts to stop working. Its impacts do not appear overnight but if its consumption lasts for years a brutal death can knock at your door. Additionally, it is more harmful to passive smokers. To illustrate this, I would quote an instance of my friend who is suffering from lung cancer. However, he had never smoked in his life. He got infected just because his father is an active smoker. Having lived in the same house inhaling cigarette smoke he got affected.

On the other hand, I do have some grounds against the central idea. First and foremost, rationale is it may bring some of the businesses to an end. For instance, pubs and discos are usually visited by a proportion of 80% of smokers. If it is banned completely, it will wash off the above-mentioned businesses.

To put it in a nutshell, I personally believe that it is difficult to persuade people to quit but it must be prohibited in public places. Moreover, in clubs, there should be a separate area for smoking so passive smokers would not suffer.

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