0
Zunayeed Posted 10 years ago
Letter Writing
Please correct my mistakes in the paragraph below. Thanks in advance. I will also prefer it if you rate this article and advise me how I can improve my writing. Thanks in advance.
Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth and resources among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizen themselves? Use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and with relevant evidence.
Answer:
The discussion about impoverished countries should get financed through rich countries is a controversial and debatable one. Even though strong logic can be given on both sides of the argument, I opine affluent countries should finance least developed countries.
Rich countries should broaden their helping hand towards poor countries, because, firstly, if solvent countries finance poverty-stricken countries, then there will be proper distribution of wealth among people all over the world. The great food crisis, for instance, in Bangladesh could never be resolved unless developed countries, like USA, UK, provided us with fresh water and breads in colossal amount back in 1975. In addition, donation will increase solidarity and co-operation among numerous countries’ ruling parties as well. However, lastly, battling against natural disaster and calamity will be much easier if and only if wealthy countries put forward its helping hand towards underdeveloped countries.
Apart from all the positive sides discussed, there are some opposite arguments of it. First of all, ruling parties of the least developed countries should take care of the mass people of their countries for least developed countries might get accustomed to getting fund; as a consequence, national domestic growth might plummet. Second argument can be affluent and rich countries might charge fees that intensify longer lasting poverty of impoverished countries.
Considering the both sides of the argument it can easily be concluded that getting help from rich countries is always advantageous than operating by own, because when great deal of financial need required by impoverished countries might not be fulfilled by least developed countries itself.
Answer:
The discussion about impoverished countries should get financed through rich countries is a controversial and debatable one. Even though strong logic can be given on both sides of the argument, I opine affluent countries should finance least developed countries.
Rich countries should broaden their helping hand towards poor countries, because, firstly, if solvent countries finance poverty-stricken countries, then there will be proper distribution of wealth among people all over the world. The great food crisis, for instance, in Bangladesh could never be resolved unless developed countries, like USA, UK, provided us with fresh water and breads in colossal amount back in 1975. In addition, donation will increase solidarity and co-operation among numerous countries’ ruling parties as well. However, lastly, battling against natural disaster and calamity will be much easier if and only if wealthy countries put forward its helping hand towards underdeveloped countries.
Apart from all the positive sides discussed, there are some opposite arguments of it. First of all, ruling parties of the least developed countries should take care of the mass people of their countries for least developed countries might get accustomed to getting fund; as a consequence, national domestic growth might plummet. Second argument can be affluent and rich countries might charge fees that intensify longer lasting poverty of impoverished countries.
Considering the both sides of the argument it can easily be concluded that getting help from rich countries is always advantageous than operating by own, because when great deal of financial need required by impoverished countries might not be fulfilled by least developed countries itself.
Top answer
You need to take one clear stance and support it in the body paragraphs of your essay; not two opposing positions, as you've done. If you do want to cite the opposing position, you need to refute that position with counterarguments. However, because your writing skills are not that strong, I recommend that you do not worry about the opposing position.
- You need to take one clear stance and support it in the body paragraphs of your essay; not two opposing positions, as you've done.
- If you do want to cite the opposing position, you need to refute that position with counterarguments.
- However, because your writing skills are not that strong, I recommend that you do not worry about the opposing position.
- Just write a couple of body paragraphs to support your position.
- Note also that each of your body paragraphs should deal with only one point.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
You need to take one clear stance and support it in the body paragraphs of your essay; not two opposing positions, as you've done.
If you do want to cite the opposing position, you need to refute that position with counterarguments. However, because your writing skills are not that strong, I recommend that you do not worry about the opposing position. Just write a couple of body paragraph
If you do want to cite the opposing position, you need to refute that position with counterarguments. However, because your writing skills are not that strong, I recommend that you do not worry about the opposing position. Just write a couple of body paragraph
0
Related Questions