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 Rather Than On Trying To Solve The Anticipated Problems Of The Future - With A Free Essay Review
Instructions: “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.”
The statement suggests that there is an alternative between long-term and short-term problems. I believe that this contestation is largely terminological, because almost all problems impart issues that require both long-term and short-term approaches to be effectively solved.
Government, as a top management of a society, has to cope with sundry, interconnected and complicated problems. Some issues can be solved immediately, only by attention to the problem and with a scintilla of a political will, while other problems can be solved only on the long-term trajectory, because they require pertinacity or an amount of resources that the country doesn’t possess at the moment. If we try to follow the statement literally we will have to stop wasting resources for education. It is better to give all resources to unemployed and poor people. Education proves useful in the long-run as many other things; educated people will drive the economy up in the years to come, thus increasing the government budget and government will have resources to help the less fortunate, for example.
Sometimes it is much cheaper to solve a problem gradually when you can anticipate it. An example is road infrastructure; if people in a region are buying more and more personal cars, it is obvious that someday the region will face egregious traffic problems. Even if traffic doesn’t seem to be a problem today it will be a problem, if the government going to ignore it and not going to invest (or make incentives to invest) in road infrastructure. When this problem will take place, the government will have to invest heavily in infrastructure, by diverting precious resources from other areas. Incidentally, some problems cannot be solved immediately and need long-run attention. For example the global warming problem can be solved if we supplant contemporary technologies by “green” ones. Without government incentives that can take too long, but we might not have this time.
The statement is extreme and given alternative probable doesn’t exist.
The distinction being made in the recommendation is not between short-term and long-term problems but between "immediate problems of today" and "anticipated problems of the future." The "problem" of education is both a long-term problem, as you recognize, and an immediate problem of today (or so I think most reasonable people would argue), and the same could be said about unemployment or poverty (they tend to be long-term problems that exist today). So I don't think that you are following the statement literally if you take it to imply we would have to stop "wasting resources for education." Even if your claim in that regard were right, however, your discussion of education would still be problematic because it doesn't complete the assigned task; i.e., you don't explain fully what the disadvantages of following the prompt in this specific circumstance would be and you don't explain how the example shapes your opinion. Perhaps you balked at saying something as obvious as: "The recommendation implies not spending money on education. That would have the following disadvantageous consequences: A, B, C. For that reason, I am disinclined to agree with the recommendation." That all seems very banal, I know, but it's the kind of thing you would need to say (perhaps you can say it more prettily) if you really believed that the recommendation implied what you say it implies.
Your subsequent examples of anticipated problems that require attention (infrastructure problems, global warming) are more reasonable, but again you don't fully execute the instructions. You really need to do that.
Overall, I don't think you have done a completely thorough job of recognizing the relevant issues here. You need to look at possible reasons for thinking it is not a good idea to focus on anticipated problems. For example, you might argue that anticipated problems may turn out not to be problems at all, so perhaps resources might be wasted on them, resources that could be devoted to tackling the certainly existing problems of today. And then you might argue that that argument is stupid because governments are necessarily involved in the business of risk management and if they don't manage risk the chances of disaster in the long run become very high. And so on.