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
“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.”
Focusing on solving the immediate problems of today or the anticipated problems of the future may be a tough problem for politicians, because both of them are highly critical for the country and its people. Though some people approve the former and others the later; in my point of view, neither of these two aspects should be privileged and governments should focus on both of them.
The duty of government is to maintain the country's political stability, economic development and national amity, with its people living and working in peace and contentment. When problems arise, it should take immediate actions to solve them, otherwise they could get increasingly worse and cause a series of serious issues. In the late Qing dynasty, with the corruption of its rulers, numerous issues remained unsolved. Though many people with lofty ideas had realized those problems and attempted to solve them, their realization and attempts did not rouse their leaders. With those unsolved and more and more emerging issues, the great Qing dynasty finally fell. If its rulers left their daydream and tried their best to solve those problems, maybe the demise of the state could not happen.
However, on the one hand, if governments only see the short-term benefit, they will pay a massive price in the future. Looking at the human history, such examples can be found everywhere. Driven by money, humans caused extensive destruction in the Amazon rainforest. Surely it brought an increase in the economy in the short term, but it also brought about ecological issues such as global warming and heavy flooding. In order to increase labor force, countries focus on generating growth without consequence. However, now many of them are facing the problem of overpopulation so that they have to promote family planning. These countries' ignorance of the possible consequence results in greater trouble.
On the other hand, only when we realize those anticipated issues of future and prepare for them can we diminish or even avoid their severity. As we realize our development could lead to global warming, every country unites together to make a joint effort such as reducing the carbon emissions. When we are aware that resources would not be enough for our descendants, we begin to make every effort to save it. Even though in the future, such problems may still occur, we at least could postpone them.
To be eligible and efficient, a government must have the ability to balance both the immediate and the anticipated problems. And only by doing this can a country flourish.
The prompt requires you to discuss the relative merits of two possible courses of action (solving immediate problems versus addressing anticipated problems), so the specific circumstances that you offer as examples need to be circumstance in which a choice is to be made. Your first example is not obviously of this kind. The circumstances are only vaguely specified ("numerous issues remained unsolved") and while you try to show that the leaders during the late Qing dynasty should have addressed the problems of the time, and not doing so perhaps led to the fall of the dynasty, you don't explain how showing that helps you answer the question.
The next paragraph is a bit better, since you note, for example, that economic growth was achieved at the cost of future ecological problems. Insofar as growing the economy could be seen as addressing an immediate problem, such as poverty, this example could be taken to show that addressing such problems without consideration of possible future problems is arguably a poor course of action. However, your paragraph doesn't really make any of that argument explicit, and it really should.
You need to make sure, then, that you are answering the question asked, or following the instructions given, and doing so explicitly. Note that in this case you do not need to seek historical examples; you can just invent possible circumstances. But not just any circumstances will do. They must be such as to allow you to consider the relative merits of solving immediate problems versus addressing anticipated ones. For example, what issues would you raise in order to address the following question: If a state anticipates a possible attack by a foreign power in, say, the next five years, should it stop trying to address existing problems of disease or poverty in order to devote all attention to building up the military defences in case the attack materializes?
P.S. Please only submit proofread documents