Could essay below possibly achieve band 7?
Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both and give your opinion.
It is true that economic growth is essential to a nation’s development. Yet, there are individuals who believe that other sectors also require an equal emphasis too. In my opinion, I agree that a government should have the similar importance of goals in all segments.
Those who assert that financial development is the ultimate mission argue that when the economy of a country does not progress or slow in improvement, the government may not afford to improve or maintain other sectors as well, namely, medical and education. The greater a nation’s income is, the better it is to support the overall growth. In fact, economic progress is inter-related to other sector, such as tourism, in which it attracts local and foreign expenditure when travelling within the country.
There are, however, some oppositions who posit that one government should not only see finance progression as their most crucial goal, but also emphasises on other types of growth. Such areas as technology, health, education as well as poverty require similar attention because a stable development in these aspects could eventually lead to a better quality of life to all. A positively developed country such as Australia has successfully maintained and sustained both the income, education and wellbeing of its citizens. This is why all governments should not overlook the remaining aspects if they wish to foster their countries’ developments.
In conclusion, I would argue that a government ought to include other segments when they are planning for their goals as to achieve a sustainable growth that is beneficial to the whole nation.
the importance of Economy Vs other sectors. Pls evaluate. thanks!
-
David.IELTS.Examiner
- IELTS Examiner
- Posts: 1371
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2015 4:34 am
Re: the importance of Economy Vs other sectors. Pls evaluate. thanks!
Hello!
Overall, I don't think that you have developed the points, although the ones you make are perfectly reasonable. Grammar and vocabulary are good, but not very specific. Also, I think that you missed a great opportunity to point out the connection between the economy and health, education and technology!
All the best,
David
Overall, I don't think that you have developed the points, although the ones you make are perfectly reasonable. Grammar and vocabulary are good, but not very specific. Also, I think that you missed a great opportunity to point out the connection between the economy and health, education and technology!
All the best,
David
Re: the importance of Economy Vs other sectors. Pls evaluate. thanks!
plin0627 wrote:
Many governments think that economic progress is their most important goal. Some people, however, think that other types of progress are equally important for a country. Discuss both and give your opinion.
It is true that economic growth is essential to a nation’s development. Yet, there are individuals who believe that other sectors also require an equal emphasis as well. In my opinion, I agree that a government should assign similar importance to goals in all segments.
Those who assert that financial development is the ultimate mission argue that when the economy of a country does not progress or slows in improvement, the government may not afford to improve or maintain other sectors as well, namely, medicine and education. The greater a nation’s income is, the better it is able to support the overall growth. In fact, economic progress is inter-related to other sectors, such as tourism, in which it attracts local and foreign expenditure when travelling within the country.
There are, however, some who posit that the government should not only see financial progression as their most crucial goal, but also emphasises other types of growth. Such areas as technology, health, education as well as poverty require similar attention because a stable development in these aspects could eventually lead to a better quality of life for all. A positively developed country such as Australia has successfully maintained and sustained both the income, education and well-being of its citizens. This is why all governments should not overlook the remaining aspects if they wish to foster their countries’ developments.
In conclusion, I would argue that a government ought to include other segments when they are planning for their goals as to achieve sustainable growth that is beneficial to the whole nation.
Re: the importance of Economy Vs other sectors. Pls evaluate. thanks!
Hi David,
i'd revise this essay as follow. Please comments in terms of marking criterias. Thanks!
The relative importance of the economic status and the country is a controversial debate when politicians and economists try to analyse countries' developments. While some believe that we should emphasize on economic development, i would argue that other factors such as education, health, environment and crimes are just as significance as the economy. This is based on the fact that the fundamental role of a government is to protect and improve its citizens living standards.
A government's basic responsibility is to serve its people. Such a responsibility is separated into several segments and that is why each country has its own health, education, police and environment departments. If any government chose not to develop or sustain any of these areas, then the government has failed to fulfil its purpose of ruling a country. To illustrate further, by providing funds or subsidise in education systems and schooling, all children and students are receiving equal and proper education which will then supporting them with better adulthoods while not involving themselves in crimes. In addition to this, they are also protected and safe from dangers that might threaten to their life. Israel, for example, is a rich country but its people are suffeing from great wars and crimes. The country is also banned from entering to most countries. This is why a sole economically developed nation is not supported.
Nevertheless, those who claim their fundamental goal to be economically strong say that without money, other industries cannot be improved. They believe that a wealthy nation will be capable in supporting free education and health services to its people, for example Denmark. However, not every country achieves a similarly strong financial status and it usually is a long progress that takes decades to accomplish. Meanwhile, society wellbeing is at urgent state which require immediate support from governments.
In conclusion, i agree that it is impossible to just taking care of the economy. Instead, other sectors require similar emphasis as they are parts of governments' roles and duties.
i'd revise this essay as follow. Please comments in terms of marking criterias. Thanks!
The relative importance of the economic status and the country is a controversial debate when politicians and economists try to analyse countries' developments. While some believe that we should emphasize on economic development, i would argue that other factors such as education, health, environment and crimes are just as significance as the economy. This is based on the fact that the fundamental role of a government is to protect and improve its citizens living standards.
A government's basic responsibility is to serve its people. Such a responsibility is separated into several segments and that is why each country has its own health, education, police and environment departments. If any government chose not to develop or sustain any of these areas, then the government has failed to fulfil its purpose of ruling a country. To illustrate further, by providing funds or subsidise in education systems and schooling, all children and students are receiving equal and proper education which will then supporting them with better adulthoods while not involving themselves in crimes. In addition to this, they are also protected and safe from dangers that might threaten to their life. Israel, for example, is a rich country but its people are suffeing from great wars and crimes. The country is also banned from entering to most countries. This is why a sole economically developed nation is not supported.
Nevertheless, those who claim their fundamental goal to be economically strong say that without money, other industries cannot be improved. They believe that a wealthy nation will be capable in supporting free education and health services to its people, for example Denmark. However, not every country achieves a similarly strong financial status and it usually is a long progress that takes decades to accomplish. Meanwhile, society wellbeing is at urgent state which require immediate support from governments.
In conclusion, i agree that it is impossible to just taking care of the economy. Instead, other sectors require similar emphasis as they are parts of governments' roles and duties.