Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Issue 19: Governments Should Focus On Solving The Immediate Problems Of Today - With A Free Essay Review.
Prompt: "Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future." Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
I agree with the first part of statement that governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today and oppose the second part which gives me an “all or nothing” impression. Solving the immediate problems is likely to improve society as well as the quality of people’s life immediately; however, the governments cannot just ignore anticipated problems of the future since these expected problems would become serious threats to countries in the long term.
It goes without saying that dealing with current problems, the well-being of society will be enhanced. For example, when the subprime mortgage crisis occurred in the United States around 2008, it might not only serve as an indicator of another “Great Depression”, but also cause a large number of eminent corporations to bankrupt and numerous people to lose jobs. If government did not solve the exigent problems immediately, the economic recession coupled with social problems would deteriorate. With the government’s help, such as a 600-billion-dollar program to help lower mortgage rate, the American people finally got rid of the crisis and the economy began turning around. So, governments ought to pay much attention to solve the immediate problems, especially those which will engender serious chain reactions, to assist people, for example, to avoid layoff as well as improving life quality.
In contrast to the statement, governments should also focus on solving the anticipated problems for the sake of preventing problems from becoming even worse. Global warming is an excellent example of this point. Due to the excessive burning of fossil fuels and undue deforestation, the average global temperature has increased from year to year, leading to undesirable troubles, including rise in sea level and frequent occurrence of extreme climate. In some respects, global warming bears a close analogy to disease. If a person, for instance, pays little attention to treat the disease diagnosed timely, the disease may finally become too bad to be cured and even put an end to the patient. Therefore, even though tackling global warming needs cooperation with each country and may spend plenty of financial and human recourses, governments should focus on these expected troubles. Otherwise, in the future, these problems may become too worse to overcome.
Some people may argue that trying to solve the anticipated problems is infeasible and unrealistic sometimes. For instance, although people know the earthquake and other catastrophes will take a heavy toll, governments have no means to solve them since current technology, though advanced, cannot precisely predict where and when the earthquake happens. Admittedly, it is true that prediction of earthquake is unrealistic, but it does not mean governments cannot take great efforts to solve these problems. Governments can reduce the destruction caused by catastrophes in several ways, ranging from organization of emergency-response teams to retrofitting existing buildings.
In conclusion, government should focus on solving both immediate problems and anticipated problems of the future because both problems, if ignored, are likely to cause great expense for governments and society.
Let me suggest that you try to interpret this prompt in a way that makes the answer more complex or more difficult than it might otherwise be. You are being asked if governments should do A or B, and your answer is that we should do both. But presumably if the answer is going to be that easy, the question is not really worth asking in the first place. The question is only an interesting one if the ability to do one thing compromises the ability to the other. That is certainly a presupposition of the question. I think you ought to take it as given that the ability to do one compromises the ability to do the other (which doesn't really amount to "all or nothing") or specifically argue that that presupposition is untrue.
Take, for example, your global warming example. Global warming is expected to be a serious problem. So you might argue that we ought to try to solve this problem now. But how does the fact that it is an anticipated problem of the future impact our decision about how to deploy resources when there are already many present problems that could possibly be solved if those resources were available? At that point, you can no longer just argue that global warming is a serious problem and needs to be addressed; you must also argue something along these lines: we have a duty to future species; if we wait until global warming is a truly present problem, it will be too late to solve it; and the impact of global warming may be worse than the impact of present-day problems. You can then conclude that in some cases (e.g., global warming) governments have a higher duty to address anticipated problems.