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.
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."
Government should of course take focus on today's problem rather than trying to solve anticipated problems of the future. When there are so many problems going on in almost every field in the nation, government should first try to reduce or solve the present day problems rather than trying to solve a future problem that you do not even know for sure would come.
There are so many problems today that need to be reduced immediately or solved by taking immediate action and government has to concentrate on those problems. There are so many issues like bank robbery, murdering people, very bad road conditions and traansport facilities in many areas and no education for poor children who end up working somewhere rather than studying. Government should immediately pay attention and take more serious actions on these issues rather then concentrating on plans for solving future problems.
Taking up future problems and working on them is important but it is based on priority of present day problem vs. future problems. Solving present day problems are important, yet if today's problem is not too important to be solved today and if the future problems would cause a very big impact on a nation, then actions have to be taken to stop the problem from coming in the future rather than letting it affect the nation and then trying to solve it. For instance, the problems like impacts of global warming in the future has to be taken into consideration and govenment must plan and educate everyone in the nation about this problem so that they would know do’s and don’t’s and help in protecting their nation. Also if the future problem would cause a big change which results in only very scarce water and power supply in the nation, then actions have to be taken today to stop that from happening in future. In the process of concentrating on future problems, present day problems should not be ignored and slowed down. If, today, a problem with high priority arises, it should be taken care of first.
Summing up, present day problems should be taken care of first rather than trying to solve anticipated future problems. If the future problem has very high impact on nation then plans have to be set up and government has to work on them along with present day problems.
The fact that there exist problems today is incontestable and is of course a presupposition of the statement you are evaluating. It is not enough, then, to say a government must address present day problems because there exist many such problems. But, with the exception of one brief remark, your first two paragraphs offer no reason why a government ought to address problems of today rather than trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. The brief remark is that we “do not even know for sure” that the anticipated problems will come about. That’s the argumentative core of the first two paragraphs, and so the bit that will get most credit, but it is obviously underdeveloped.
You need to explain, then, why we should address problems that definitely exist even at the expense of addressing anticipated problems. You can do that in a number of ways. You might claim for instance that it is a potential waste of resources to try to solve anticipated problems. Or you might claim that there is a much higher probability that a society will do more good in the long run by focusing on existing problems.
The second argument of your essay is that in certain circumstances it is wise to try to solve anticipated problems: “if the future problems would cause a very big impact on a nation, then actions have to be taken to stop the problem etc.” You do not justify this claim except indirectly by way of an example (global warming), and even in the example the reason you advance for the need to address the problem now is a bit vague. What’s not clear in the case of the example, for instance, is why planning and education is necessary. To say that people need to know the “do’s and don’t’s) is really to say very little, and nothing specific. So what is the general (i.e., not example-specific) reason for addressing anticipated problems that might have a big impact? And why might the problem of global warming be a good example of that problem? Specifically, you need to specify (as the instructions dictate) what would be advantageous about addressing the problem now, or disadvantageous about ignoring the problem in order to concentrate on the problems of today. One might argue, for instance, that “big impact” problems are such that cannot be adequately addressed once the problem is upon us; or that are much too difficult and costly to address then.
I’ve written about this prompt on a number of occasions, so I’m not going to say anything more directly about it here, but I’ll give a tangential example that might help a little in clarifying what one of the issues that would need to be considered is. Let’s say I own a car with a number of mechanical problems that impact performance and economy but not safety. Let’s say I can afford either to address those problems or to pay my car insurance bill, but not both. Should I fix the car or, worried about the possibility of an accident that will leave me, if I am uninsured, with significant debt and a sizable fine, should I pay the insurance bill? The answer to that question should be obvious enough on both pragmatic and ethical grounds. What if, instead, my child needs medication, and it’s a choice between paying for that or paying for the car insurance? Assuming I’ve no choice about driving the car, the answer is still most likely different from the previous answer.
Obviously circumstances can change everything, and the prompt that you are responding to here really requires you imagine different kinds of circumstances. But you should also be able to talk about how the circumstances are different in a general way. You are doing that up to a point when you talk about future problems that “would cause a very big impact” but that’s a very vague way of specifying the type of anticipated problem that demands present action.