Your Replies

  • Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    July 20, 2020 at 2:34 pm

    In many countries, there has been extensive debate over who should pay for public healthcare.

    Pensioners and the working class expect the government to pay the full costs of their healthcare in return for their taxes. Also, the needy like the unemployed are looking forward to free medical bills. They believed that they are among those groups most deserving of help. Since medical care is fundamental to the well-being of a nation, as it fulfils the basic need of citizens. Therefore, a government, rich or poor, has the responsibility to provide the best possible welfare to its citizens, not to mention the sick and the underprivileged.

    However, a government sometimes does not have enough resources to provide free medical care for everyone. For instance, a government sometimes spends its expenses in other fields. Take technology development as an example, a country may think it is a root of the state. As a result, the country invests more on it. Yet, this then results in a heavy burden on governments’ treasury. Thus, it is not workable to ask governments to pay all bills for public healthcare. Otherwise, those states will fall into expense overload. At that time, not only will free healthcare fail, but also other policies such as free education and technology development.

    In conclusion, a government should strive to make its medical system as efficient as possible. As the efficient medical system ensures medical fees and hospital costs are affordable for the general public. Despite governments’ challenges, they should shoulder the full costs of medical treatment for needy people like the disabled. Because these needy people are the most vulnerable groups in society. As for other people, they should still pay part of their medical bills to achieve the state’s sustainability.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 26, 2020 at 3:30 am

    The first line graph shows the figure for passengers travelling by train in Sydney. The second line graph illustrates the proportion of trains running on time.

    It is notable that the number of train passengers increased in this nine-year period. However, the service of rail transport was not satisfactory in general.

    Starting at 250 million in 1995, the number of train passengers climbed consistently. It reached a peak of just 300 million in 2001. This was followed by a gradual decline, ending at marginally under 280 million in 2004.

    As shown in the second chart, the Sydney train’s on-time goal was approximately 93%. Yet, except in 1999 and 2002, most years failed to achieve the aim. Schematically, the year 2004 witnessed the worst performance in terms of punctuality (well under 75%)

    In conclusion, train passengers in Sydney experienced a year-on-year increase. Meanwhile, the quality of railway service was in decline as most trains did not run on time .

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 22, 2020 at 12:40 am

    The first line graph shows the figure for passengers travelling by train in Sydney. The second line graph illustrates the proportion of trains running on time.

    It is notable that the number of train passengers increased in this nine-year period. However, the service of rail transport was not satisfactory in general.

    Starting at 250 million in 1995, the number of train passengers climbed consistently. It reached a peak of just 300 million in 2001. This was followed by a gradual decline, ending at marginally under 280 million in 2004.

    As shown in the second chart, the Sydney train’s on-time goal was approximately 93%. Yet, except in 1999 and 2002, most years failed to achieve the aim. Schematically, the year 2004 witnessed the worst performance in terms of punctuality (well under 75%)

    In conclusion, train passengers in Sydney experienced a year-on-year increase. Meanwhile, the quality of railway service was in decline as most trains did not run on time .

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 21, 2020 at 11:55 am

    The graphs are sent through WeChat

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 11, 2020 at 11:11 am

    The line chart gives data on the sales of three kinds of books from 2002 to 2006 in a country. Generally, the retail of all types of books, except grown-up fiction, experienced an upward trend throughout this period.

    In 2002, the sales of underaged and educational books increased sharply. They went up from close to 35 and 25 million dollars to above 40 and around 30 million dollars by 2003 respectively. However, the figure for adults’ friction plunged to approximately 37 million dollars the following year.

    From 2003 onwards, the number of books sold in the education field was in gradual decline between 2003 and 2004. It soared to the highest point at about 33 million dollars in 2006. By contrast, the income from adults’ fiction dipped after 2003 and bottomed out at 30 million dollars in 2006. However, there was a slight growth over half of the period. Moreover, the popularity of kid’s books kept going up, with the sales reaching the peak of marginally over 55 million dollars by the end of 2006.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 10, 2020 at 1:39 pm

    The graph has been sent through Wechat.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 9, 2020 at 2:07 pm

    Medicines have been routinely tested on animals. Though I do not believe in the testing of products on animals, there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.

    First and foremost, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma. They believe that every organism has its right to choose a living way. Because of this, we should respect their rights. This means scientific purposes do not justify the suffering of organisms. Since animals feel pain during the investigation, which breaks their rights. Hence, experimenting on animals is inhumane and no longer carries out. Consequently, scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals for investigation.

    Yet many people feel that there are no viable methods to make drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for humanity. One example is the demand for the testing of medicine during this epidemic. Thousands of people are suffering from the deadly coronavirus. Research on the battle against the disease should thus speed up in no time. Which means experimentation on living subjects is essential to cure others. Under these circumstances, I feel that it may be a necessary evil when saving people from hell.

    In conclusion, though animal-based experimentation is cruel, saving people from illnesses outweighs anything. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it until a proper alternative has developed.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 5, 2020 at 2:10 am

    Medicines have been routinely tested on animals. Personally, though I do not believe in the testing of products on animals, there is a clear argument for experimentation on animals for medical purposes.

    There are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. Opponents of animal testing argue that humans have no right to subject animals to trauma that is morally wrong.They believe that scientific purposes do not justify the suffering caused for other organisms.This is because they can feel pain as well and therefore should not be free from those anguished diseases. Hence, experimenting on animals is inhumane so scientists should use alternative methods to reduce harm on animals for investigation.

    Countering this argument, many people feel that there are no viable methods to research life-saving drugs without animal-based study. They believe that the pain inflicted upon laboratory animals is a small price to pay for the benefits to humanity. One example is the demand for the testing of medicine during this epidemic. Thousands of people are suffering from the deadly coronavirus. Research on the battle against the disease should thus speed up in no time ,which implies experimentation on living subjects must be applied to save the others. While I do not believe in the animal-based research on non-medical purposes, I feel that it may be a necessary evil when testing new formulas for life-saving drugs under stress.

    In conclusion, while I can see the moral viewpoint of people who disagree with animal-based experimentation, I reckon that saving people from illnesses outweighs the pain suffered by the other creatures. As a result, it would be irresponsible to ban it until a proper alternative has been developed.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    June 2, 2020 at 12:42 pm

    The line graph gives data on the global grain harvesting area from 1950 to the 1990s. The worldwide grain harvesting area saw a general climb but was influenced by three factors during this period.

    Starting from approximately 590 million hectares in 1950, the agricultural area grew continuously to just 650 thanks to the advent of The USSR Virgin Land Program. Despite the fluctuation beyond the climb, it still increased to 700 million hectares generally.

    When the grain price doubled, the cultivation lands’ area soared, which reached the peak of the vicinity of 750, by 50 million hectares. However, there was a negligible slip in around 1978.

    Due to retrenchment, the figure turned worse. The area dropped to 700 million hectares from the highest point in 1985, reaching the end with a fluctuation at 700 million hectares in about 1995.

    Overall, the amount of grain farmland saw an overall upward trend from 1950 to the 1990s by around 100 million hectares.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    May 23, 2020 at 2:48 am

    When asked whether helping others is the most important thing if we are rich, people are always at odds with each other. In my opinion, it is not appropriate to link being rich directly with being helpful.

    The rich have a multitude of money to do what they like. Compared with these people, the general public only has enough capital to afford daily necessities such as food and clothes. Therefore, ordinary people do not have spare money to subsidize the poor, so they think rich people should bear the liability for helping people in need.

    However, it is wrong to oblige other people to do uncomfortable things. The money amassed by the rich is also by their arduous effort. As the proverb goes, ‘no pain, no gain.’ If people pay their hearts, effort must pay them back, which varies on how much they pay.

    Therefore, how to use the money earned by millionaires is by the person. Helping others is not the rich’s responsibility. Some of them may use part of their money to help people in need. Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, has donated untold medical stuff like masks to countries around the world amid the epidemic period. As a result, he is worth our respect. How about those who have never helped others? Should they be victims of cyberbullying due to no help?

    To sum up, everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions by themselves. No doubt that helping others is important. Nonetheless, capitalists choosing whether to help others is the number-one concern in a civilized society.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    May 23, 2020 at 1:20 am

    Some rich people believe that entertaining themselves to get a relax is paramount. Some may think that donate their money to help other people is more vital. No matter how the most significant thing defines, I reckon that helping other people is not the top list about being rich.

    As we know, the rich have a multitude of money to do what they like. Compared with these people, the general public only has enough capital to afford daily necessities such as food and clothes. Therefore, people in the base are willing to receive monetary supports from those people to boost their purchasing power.

    However, it is wrong to oblige other people to do unwanted things.  The money earned by the rich is also by their arduous effort. As the proverb goes, ‘no pain, no gain.’ If people pay their hearts, effort must pay them back, which depends on how much they pay.

    Therefore, how to use the money earned by millionaires is by person.  Helping is not rich people’s responsibility. Some of them may use part of their money to help people in need. Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, has donated untold medical stuff like masks to the countries around the world amid the epidemic period. As a result, he is worth our respect. How about those who never helped others? Should they be victims of cyberbullying due to no help?

    To sum up, everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions by themselves. No doubt that helping others is important. Nonetheless, capitalists choosing whether to help others is the number-one concern in the civilized society.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    May 19, 2020 at 11:56 pm

    Some rich people believe that entertaining themselves to get a relax is paramount. Some may think that donate their money to do charitable activities to help other people is more vital. No matter how the most significant thing is defined, I reckon that allowing a person to help other people is not the top list about being rich.

    As we know, the rich have a multitude of money to do what they like. Compared with these people, the general public only have sufficient capital to afford daily necessities such as food and clothes. Therefore, people in the base are willing to receive monetary supports from those people since they may believe that everyone should be equal and use the term ‘equality’ to illuminate the way of ‘evenly distribution of assets’.

    Nevertheless, it is wrong to oblige other people to do unwanted things. What can I say is that ‘equality’ is a term for ensuring everyone gets the same treatment from a person or organisation, including the term ‘freedom’ which is inclusive of choosing whether to do or not. The money earned by the rich is also identical to us which is by effort. As the proverb goes, ‘no pain, no gain.’ If people pay their hearts, they must be paid back, which depends on how much they pay. That is equality indeed.

    Therefore, how to use the money earned by people is by person. Some rich people may use part of their money to help people in need. For instance, Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, has donated so much medical stuff like masks to the countries around the world amid the epidemic period. As a result, he is profoundly deserved our respect. How about those who never helped others? Should they be victims of cyberbullying? Why?

    To sum up, everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions by themselves. There is no doubt that helping others is indeed important. Nonetheless, the right for people to choose the important thing for them is the number-one concern in the civilized society.

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    May 6, 2020 at 12:11 am

    <span>Some rich people believe that entertaining themselves to get a relax is paramount. Some may think that donate their money to do charitable activities to help other people is more vital. No matter how the most significant thing is defined, I reckon that allowing a person to help other people is not the top list about being rich.

    As we know, the rich have a multitude of money to do what they like. Compared with these people, the general public only have sufficient capital to afford daily necessities such as food and clothes. Therefore, people in the base are willing to receive monetary supports from those people since they may believe that everyone should be equal and use the term ‘equality’ to illuminate the way of ‘evenly distribution of assets’.

    Nevertheless, it is wrong to oblige other people to do unwanted things. What can I say is that ‘equality’ is a term for ensuring everyone gets the same treatment from a person or organisation, including the term ‘freedom’ which is inclusive of choosing whether to do or not. The money earned by the rich is also identical to us which is by effort. As the proverb goes, ‘no pain, no gain.’ If people pay their hearts, they must be paid back, which depends on how much they pay. That is equality indeed.

    Therefore, how to use the money earned by people is by person. Some rich people may use part of their money to help people in need. For instance, Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, has donated so much medical stuff like masks to the countries around the world amid the epidemic period. As a result, he is profoundly deserved our respect. How about those who never helped others? Should they be victims of cyberbullying? Why?

    To sum up, everyone has the freedom to make their own decisions by themselves. There is no doubt that helping others is indeed important. Nonetheless, the right for people to choose the important thing for them is the number-one concern in the civilized society.</span>

    Darren212
    University: PLKCHC (a secondary school)
    Nationality: China
    May 2, 2020 at 2:28 am

    Some rich people believe that entertaining themselves to get a relax is paramount. Some may think donate their money to do charitable activities to help other people is more vital. No matter how the most significant thing is defined, I reckon that giving a person the opportunity to help other people is not the top list about being rich.

    As we know, the rich have a multitude of money to do what they like. Compared with these people, the general public only have sufficient capital to afford daily necessities such as food and clothes. Therefore, people in the base are willing to receive monetary supports from those people since they may believe that everyone should be equal and use the term ‘equality’ to illuminate the way of ‘evenly distribution of assets’.

    Nevertheless, it is definitely wrong to oblige other people to do unwanted things. What can I say is that ‘equality’ is a term for ensuring everyone gets the same treatment from a person or organisation, including the term ‘freedom’ which is inclusive of choosing whether to do or not. The money earned by the rich is also identical as us that is by effort. As the proverb goes, ‘no pain, no gain.’ If people pay their heart, they must be paid back, which depends on how much they pay. That is equality indeed.

    Therefore, how to use the money earned by people is by person. Some rich people may use part of their moeny to help people in need. For instance, Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, has donated so much medical stuff like masks to the countries around the world amid the epidemic period. As a result, he is profoundly deserved our respect. How about those never helped others? Should they be victims of cyberbullying? Why?

    To sum up, everyone has their freedom to make own decisions by themselves. There is no doubt that it is true that helping others is important. Nonetheless, the right for people to choose the important thing for them is the number-one concern in civilized society.