Task 2 Essay Sample: Health and Diet

“Many office authorities impose restriction on smoking within the offices premises. Some governments have even banned smoking in all public places. This is a good idea but it takes away some of our freedom.” What are your opinions on this? Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.

There is no denial that cigarette smoking is harmful and smoking as a habit has been on a decline all over the world, particularly among the aware and health conscious populace. Cigarette smoking has two major effects on non-smokers-injurious passive smoking and smoking display that has an invitational or persuasive effect on non-smokers. I believe banning smoking in public places and offices not only will discourage smoking, but will also keep the smoking practice out of site, though it might apparently look like transgress into smoker’s freedom.

There are several reasons that government and private authorities are being strict5 on smoking in offices and even public places. Firstly, this is an accepted fact that smoking is injurious to health. Secondly, smoking causes health hazard to non-smokers who inhale smoke passively from the smokers. Thirdly, smoking has a strong psychologically influence on others, particularly on children and young who learns form their elderly. Fourthly, in many countries the cost of health care and insurance has gone up due to smoking related illnesses. So health authorities and governments are trying to has been seen that due to the restrictions, the habit of smoking is on a decline among office goers.

Though non-smokers think that restricting smoking in offices and public places is a good idea, smokers often view it as a intervention into their right. Smokers argue that cigarette smoking has direct relation to their workplace performance, though passive smoking can cause objections from colleagues. Though pressure groups such as tobacco companies may discourage restrictions on smoking, since the advantages of ban outweigh the disadvantages, mass public support such bans. Moreover offices have the right to regulate staff behavior and activities and governments too can ban smoking in public places for greater societal benefit. In conclusion, restricting smoking in workplaces and in public is a good idea.

I can also understand the opinion of smokers that banning smoking in such places limits their freedom. However, if the negative effects of smoking were limited only to smokers, I would oppose bans, but as smoking affects the health of others, I support them.

Some people prefer to go to health clubs and gyms for health care, but some say that walking and climbing stairs are more effective. Discuss both and give your opinion.

These days people are becoming more and more health conscious, more inclined to develop health through physical exercise. Many go to gymnasiums to work out using machineries, while others just maintain a physically active lifestyle walking and climbing stairs. Both ways are effective.

Going to health clubs and gyms have become very popular lately. We, as humans, like to make occasions out of every prominent activity and distinguish physically locatable settings to observe such rituals. For example, we go to mosques, temples, churches to pray, highly decorated departmental stores for groceries, community centers to celebrate unions, restaurants to eat and lounges and cafés to hang out. And there are the overwhelmingly equipped bureaus for work. Going to gymnasiums to work out is, thus, a very consistent behavior. Apart from its spatial identity a health club has its intrinsic benefits also. The equipments and the guided environment there make exercising easier, and, hence, the recent popularity.

Some, on the other hand, find it impractical to make the time and go to a separate place to have physical exercise, and are bent on maintaining health by being physically active, not being conveniently lazy. They walk over to shortly distant places, rather than hiring transports, and briskly climb the staircase sometimes avoiding the elevator. This, in itself, has great advantages too. It, firstly, saves the additional time and expenditure needed to go to gyms. And, since this, once habituated, is barely distinguishable as a separate activity, we persevere at it even without knowing. In my opinion, physical activity, integrated within the regular lifestyle is better than making a separate occasion out of it. Obviously, I am encouraged by the financial advantage of it. But, moreover, I believe in maintaining my health and hygiene in private, on my own, and within my everyday happenings.

In sum, going to health clubs and having physical activities in regular life, are both popular and have their own effectiveness. I believe the choice between the two is a matter of personal taste and affordability rather than comparative advantage.

It is noticeable that fast food consumption has increased substantially during the last 10 years. Discuss its impact on environment and health.

Fast food has grown in the last decade thick and fast. A good part of mom’s kitchen has already succumbed to it. But this is taken sportingly as the fast food revolution has both advantages and disadvantages effective on personal and environmental health as do all other changes brought by industrialization and, more recently, globalization.

As said before, fast food is growing thick and fast. It has been embraced by people all around the world fast, but it is thick in grease and artificial additives which already have been proven to have occasionally terminal effects. Fast food is a profit earning consumer product produced by the impersonal professionalism of the industry and not the personal favor of mothers or other traditionally familial culinary experts. This means fast food concerns itself primarily on how it will bring in more kudos, frequently bartering health and safety in exchange of financial prospects. There are environmentally harmful implications also resulting from the mass production of fowl and cattle, which are the staple items in most fast foods.

On the other hand, fast food has helped lubricating the quick winding cogs of today’s industrial civilization. It provides nourishment to the innumerable contributors of modern economy who have little time to cease for the more time consuming domestic dining. Also, it has done so staying within the affordability of most men. Considering that, fast food is, at least, cost-effective, which is quite a complement in the contemporary perspective. Yes, again, this amenity has its draw backs too, mostly related to health of individuals, but the price to pay for this urban convenience has not yet been proven to be dear. Hence the unstopped growth of the fast food industry as we speak! There are few in this world that do not have a two-faced implication of chance.

It is, therefore, acceptable that the use of fast food has substantial benefits while the abuse of it may be harmful. One must then conclude that fast foods are here to stay, but we should indulge in it with caution and concern for health.

In some countries, the average weight of people is increasing and their level of health and fitness is decreasing. What do you think are the causes of these problems and what measures could be taken to solve them?

In some countries despite people’s rising average weight, they are still seeing a fall in health and fitness. There are various reasons for this and possible actions can be taken to tackle the problem.

There are many reasons for the aforementioned problem. The application of cutting-edge machines in farming and husbandry has been boosting the food supplied worldwide. Starvation is reduced but the feeling of fullness is no longer enough to the customers. More concentration on the taste of food adding with the thirst for profits of producers have been leading to the mass production of junk foods such as fried chicken, pizza, hamburgers, donuts,… which are delicious, convenient but contain unhealthy chemical or too much fat and sugar. The overconsumption of these products, therefore, can result in diabetes, obesity or worse – cancer and untreatable diseases in customers and shorten their lives.

Additionally, the needs of managing a heavy workload to earn a living and the seduction from modern entertaining devices have been preventing people from taking part in recreational activities. The lack of exercise and training program may lead to the going down of people’s physical health and easier to become ill when exposing to germs. This problem can be solved by creating healthy living habits. Rather than consuming processed food and reading meals bought from outside, people should choose home-cooked food with fresh and high-quality ingredients. No matter how busy they are, setting a proper schedule with time for exercising is also crucial as this habit help people not only become healthier but have an attractive physical outlook.

In conclusion, to solve the puzzle of gaining weight but losing health, of which the root causes are fast food and inefficient of training, building up a timetable balancing work and exercise and eating smartly are necessary

People should look after their health for personal benefits, rather than a duty for a society. What extent do you agree or disagree?

Issues related to health have always been difficulties in human life for thousand years. Therefore, some people argue that taking care of one’s health can benefit their personal life. Others, however, believe this should be considered as the responsibility of the society. In my opinion, people should look after their health for both reasons mentioned above.

On the one hand, there are two main reasons why improving one’s well-being can have a great impact on personal life. Firstly, in terms of appearance, people who concern about health problems often feel more confident than the ones who pay less attention to this field. Fit body shape can be achieved by involving in sports activities and having moderation in eating. On top of that, taking care of health can prevent certain physical conditions in order to boost the immune system and increase the energy level. This can result in better performance and bigger goal acquired/obtained.

On the other hand, health and physicality of the citizen can affect the wealth and prosperity of a country as well. The health of people has an obvious connection to the environmental quality of that society. A country of good health always appreciates the awareness of protecting the surrounding because they know that the environment can be a decisive factor which affects their health. Moreover, recent research has shown that the lower stress the citizens have the higher average life expectancy of the country is. This means that if people take care of their mental health properly, they can live longer to contribute to their country.

In conclusion, the fact that taking care of health can benefit both personal life and the society should be recognized and applied widely.

In some countries, an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much fast food. It is, therefore, necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of food. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

People tend to spend much time at work and have little time to come home for a proper meal with their families. Fast foods appear ideal for them to maintain their energy to keep on working through these are not truly healthy foods. Some people believe that government should regulate this food industry by imposing a higher tax on the business on this type of food in order to restrict its potential harm. However, I absolutely disagree with this opinion.

To start with, fast food could not completely be considered as drug or tobacco. The reason for this is because the latter is used for leisure and they themselves are the products that can make the users end up becoming addictive. Meanwhile, people have fast foods because they do not have enough time to prepare a lunch or dinner in their own kitchens. They are all likely to have other choices of what and where to eat provided that they could help them to save time. Second, fast food or junk foods are considered unhealthy due to the ways to process them. Instead of imposing a higher tax on the outlet owners, the government should have programmes that encourage producers and cooks to alter their methods of cooking. For example, the frying process could be replaced by steaming. More vegetable or fruits could be added to the food items so that they become more nutritious.

This solution might take much time to be implemented but it is not quite impossible. The final way for the government to tackle the issue could be that they should have more campaign to boost citizens to exercise. Cardiovascular, obese or diabetes could be of genetic or age or other reasons apart from merely having junk foods. Only when people work out regularly are they able to prevent evitable health problems. My cousin who eats hamburgers, spaghetti and pizzas virtually every other day is not only fine in heath but also in body shape just because he plays badminton three times a week.

In conclusion, a certain legal action is taken by the government to mitigate public opinion on fast foods is deservedly applauded. I think, however, imposing a higher tax on fast-food producers and outlet owners could not be the most 298 reasonable way to be engaged.

The percentage of overweight children in western society has increased by almost 20%in the last ten years. Discuss the causes and effects of this disturbing trend.

There is an alarming increase in overweight children in western countries in the last ten with a high rate of 20%. This essay will discuss that unhealthy eating habit is the main cause of the problem and that leads to our children suffering from obesity and other health-related problems.

Poor diet is the primary cause of overweight in children. In the western world where parents are living a hectic life, preparing healthy meals for their children seems impractical as it takes more time to cook and it really costs more. That results in the popularity of fast food and junk food in the society such as McDonald, KFC and Pizza Hut which locate almost every corner of the street, selling food with a high level of trans fats and soft drink with a great amount of sugar. According to a stunning report of the Childhood Overweight Association in the U.S, American children only consume about 10% of the calories from fast food, the remaining 90% of calories remain in their bodies. Good but the task requires to show causes, not cause.

Overweight children often lead to obesity. Children with obesity are facing an elevated risk of a broad range of diseases from blood pressure to heart-related diseases and even mental problems. According to a report published by the National Academy of Health showed that overweight and obese children are four times more likely to have heart disease than their normal-weight counterparts. Furthermore, they are often bullied by friends and suffering from social isolation which results in higher levels of stress hormones, of self-esteem and of depression in their childhood. Ok, concise and fully acquire the task.

To conclude, western countries experienced the fast growth in the number of overweight children. Poor diet with predominant fast food is the main cause of this worrying trend and it immensely impacts children’s physical and mental health.

Fewer and fewer people walk on a daily basis. What are the reasons and how to encourage them to spend their time walking?

Nowadays, it is argued by some people that there are decreasingly effective motivations for people to form a habit of walking regularly. There are various contributing factors making this kind/sort/type of exercise less prevalent, however, essential measures can be implemented to have a stimulating effect on the reluctance of the public to walk.

 There are a number of compelling reasons why people fail to follow a tendency of walking on a regular basis. When taking up walking, people have to face up to a challenge in terms of time length, which acts as a deterrent, especially when they are in a hurry. For instance, as a part of the contemporary world, many parents have become over-reliant on cars to pick up their children at schools instead of walking. Furthermore, this situation is mostly attributable to the laziness of those who are out of condition and have a sedentary lifestyle. Infrastructures such as lifts and escalators in building or shopping offices, for example, are ubiquitous and thus people increase the dependence on such technologies, rather than walking to keep in shape.

Nevertheless, increasing the popularity of walking on a daily basis is the responsibility of both national and local authorities. Firstly, the appropriate solution that should be a focus on the agenda of international bodies would be to impose restrictions on the use of escalators, in particular, in the low-rise buildings. As a result, the use of stairs should be obligatory, with lift only for disabled people. Secondly, improving and introducing the construction of infrastructures such as pavements and pedestrian areas must be the alternative government priority. Indeed, more walkways and trees could provide relief from rain and sun so as to gain an improved quality of life.

In conclusion, although many people downplay the importance of walking, with planning and initiatives it would be impossible to underestimate this form of exercise.

Model 2

It is true that nowadays the number of people walk on a daily basis is decreasing dramatically. There are various reasons given to explain this tendency and several effective solutions must be applied to address this problem.

There are two main reasons why fewer people walk regularly now. The first reason is that the development of technology has discouraged some people from walking. In most buildings, escalators and elevators have appeared, especially in the shopping center and building offices. They are convenient and time-saving but it caused laziness for older people. Secondly, the number of vehicles like cars or motorbikes are used increasingly higher, especially in car-journey. For example, parents now often drop off their children go to school by car or motorbike, even though school isn’t far from their private house.

There are measures which need to be applied to encourage everybody walk more regularly. In low- rise buildings, the use of stairs should be obligatory, just have only one lift for disabled people. Secondly, the government should build some parks near the town block and the residential areas to create a place for people to remain their walking habit. Moreover, the benefits of walking should be wide promoted through the official media in order that everyone could understand and practice daily.

 In conclusion, we can give some reasons which explain to fewer people who want to walk every day and some simple measures should be taken by both the government and individuals.

Some people say that health care and education should be the responsibility of the government but others think that it is the responsibility of the individuals themselves. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some people believe that payment of two aspects: health care and education should be afforded by government, whereas the opponents of this idea claim that the responsibilities to pay for these aspects should belong to the individuals. While there are rational reasons for individuals to be responsible for their own healthy and educational payment, I would argue that the government should play the main role in affording for these demands of their citizens.

On the one hand, some people support the idea of individuals paying for health care and education because these are personal matters. It is believed that if people have to pay their medical bills and schooling fees by themselves, they will have more motivation to be more careful in maintaining their health as well as studying more seriously. In addition, it may be unfair when a part of citizens who work harder and pay more tax not only pay for their healthcare and educational demands but also pay for the ones who are jobless or indolent.

On the other hand, many people claim that it’s government who must be in charge of paying for their citizens’ health care and education. This is based on the fact that people all have to pay many kinds of tax such as income tax, property tax, and value-added tax so the funds should benefit them as well. Furthermore, spending budget on improving health care and education’s quality is an effective way to enhance the government’s international reputation. Moreover, leaning on government’s budget is an opportunity for the poor to approach to acceptable conditions to develop themselves so that they can escape from poverty and difficulties.

In summary, although it is reasonable that medical and educational fees should be paid by individuals, I would argue that it is government’s task to provide their citizens with free basic needs in education and healthcare.

Tobacco is a kind of drug. People have been free to use it. Some people think that it would be illegal to use it compared with other drugs. To what extent do you agree or disagree? What is your opinion?

Every year, thousands of people die from smoking tobacco all over the world. Some hold the view that tobacco should be prohibited to use. I do not totally agree with this view. In this essay, I shall give reasons to support my argument and form my opinion.

To begin with, tobacco especially cigarettes have many detrimental effects on people’s health. Drug abuse is a key factor which causes the lung cancer and a great possibility of heart attack or dental problems. Moreover, using tobacco gives smokers a high chance of an early grave and it holds true for those who are around smokers due to second-hand smoke. Women who are pregnant will be seriously affected by the active smokers, thus it can develop congenital defects for the baby later. Therefore, a tobacco prohibition seems to be a must. However, there are many drawbacks of tobacco banning.

Firstly, some smokers who oppose this regulation can form an organized crime so that they can be free to use tobacco. As a result, there is an increase in violence because these organizations are against the police’s actions. This can make the society becomes more complicated than ever. Hence, this policy cannot work well as it is believed. Secondly, manufacturing of drug can generate a lot of benefits that prosper a country as a whole. This income comes from the tax which companies, as well as consumers, have to pay. Additional, drug factories allowed to operate will create more employment chances for job seekers. This can lead to a growth of standards of living for residents. Thus, in my opinion, the government should put controls on- the manufacturing and consumption of tobacco instead of enforcing a prohibited regulation. The reason for this is that government may have a huge loss of income and deal with the unstable social issues.

To put it into the nutshell, I pen down with my view that tobacco should not be banned but it should be put into the limits to ensure the society’s health as well as economy.

Smoking is a major cause of serious illnesses death throughout the world today. In the interest of the public health, governments should ban cigarettes and other tobacco products. Do you agree or disagree?

The past 50 years have seen a dramatic increase of death due to smoking. Many people adopt a view that authorities need to prohibit selling and using cigarettes and other tobacco products to tackle this problem. I strongly agree with this view.

First of all, it is common to recognize that smoking is one of the most primary causes of death. Scientists have intensely verified that smoking for many years is responsible for lung cancer and respiratory-related conditions. As well as this, statistics have significantly proved that smoking detrimentally affects not just the smokers but also the non-smokers. In fact, when a man smokes in a public place, everyone around him will inhale the toxic emission released from his cigarette. Therefore, it is undeniable that smoking threatens the health of the smokers and even people living with him or her particularly his or her beloved ones.

Secondly, smoking is also a financial burden of citizens in developing countries. In fact, the tough life induces people to find it very difficult to make ends meet, resulting in suffering from depression and stress. As a result, they consume cigarettes as the most efficient way to relax and escape from the sadness. Gradually, that becomes an indispensable habit in their daily life. Therefore, smoking frequently drains the significant part of their family budgets which makes their lives become harder and harder.

In conclusion, with the evidence I have mentioned above, I strongly believe that governments should prohibit selling and advertising tobacco products to provide a healthier quality of life to the public.

Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical service should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private healthcare outweigh the disadvantages.  


People have different views about whether private centers should operate services related to healthcare due to their great concern over their health/wellbeing because they consider that the good medication is very crucial for them. Although there are some shortcomings of accepting/running the private healthcare system in society, I believe that it is better to facilitate it for some beneficial reasons.

On the one hand, there are some disadvantages that eliminate the implications of profit-based companies on the public-health system. Firstly, this is owing to the important requirement of equal treatment for people/everyone as a basic human right. Any healthcare based on the purpose of earning profit from treatment fee can deter people to access the quality of medication which they deserve. As regard to cancer treatment for example, because of prohibitive expenditures for the chemical and radioactive process, most cancer patients with financial constraint cannot have/stand a chance to be cured in private hospitals. Without money, no charity or free-charged treatment can be perpetuated in these places. Secondly, the system of health care aiming to generate profit can widen the gap between the rich and poor. This is attributed to the reason that people who have the tighter finance for the best healthcare are more vulnerable to decease than prosperous class, and thus they are likely poorer and poorer.

On the other hand, regardless of financial background, people are responsible for their own health conditions and they also have the right to choose which caring service they desire to apply for. In this respect, private services obviously provide better support for patients. For example, they can have benefited from fast treatment, which means they no longer have to wait too long for appointments or operations. Furthermore, these private centers for healthcare can collaborate with state hospital to help the poor have an access to modern facilities of healthcare so they can still be treated with affordable costs. Hence, in my opinion, instead of banning or prohibiting the private sector of health services, there should be a cooperation of profit-making hospitals and public health centers to assure that all people can be looked after at the best conditions.

In conclusion, despite the weaknesses of profit-making companies, it seems to me that health care for every person should be judged taking both private and public systems into account. 330 words


It is true that good health care services are a fundamental need that every citizen demands. While there are some drawbacks of private hospitals, I still believe that these will be eclipsed by the benefits.

On the one hand, the downsides of private health care cannot be overlooked. As a matter of fact, patients may suffer from the expensive fees for diagnosis and treatment as the costs for private hospitals to maintain state-of-the-art facilities and employ well-trained doctors are extremely exorbitant, which discourages the underprivileged from enjoying quality health care services. As a result, only the affluent are able to have access to good health care but those who always struggle to make a living cannot afford it. This practice goes against the common belief that everyone, regardless of financial background, is entitled to medical service.

On the other hand, I still believe that the disadvantages of private clinics cannot overshadow the advantages. Private healthcare centers can share responsibilities with state hospitals in taking care of people’s health. With the rapid growth of population, public medical services are unable to solely provide sufficient health care for a large number of patients. Therefore, the widespread presence of private healthcare institutions with facilities greatly modernized and doctors carefully trained not only supplies people with high-quality professional treatment but also solves the problems of overloaded public healthcare systems. For instance, as the publicly funded healthcare system in Vietnam is becoming overloaded, the appearance of private hospitals such as Phap Viet and Hoan My can share responsibilities for easing the pressures of state hospitals.

In conclusion, I believe that the advantages of the prevalence of private clinics outweigh the disadvantages.

Model 3

It is true that nowadays there is an increasing number of privately-operated healthcare services besides public agencies. While there exist several drawbacks to the services of these private-owned firms, I believe they are eclipsed by the substantial benefits.

On the one hand, it is understandable why people disapprove of medical treatment provided by profit-makers. The key rationale is attributed to the expensive equipment used in these hospitals or clinics along with the exorbitant prices that patients have to cover. Additionally, due to the major aim of maximizing profits, these firms may raise the costs of their services such as prescription fees or surgery prices. This may act as a contributor to the inaccessibility to medical care of people who live under the poverty line, which prevents them from receiving the most effective cure. For example, the USA is a typical example of an excessively unfair and inaccessible healthcare due to the privatization of such factor. Meanwhile, the UK offers a National Health Service that delivers universal healthcare.

On the other hand, notwithstanding the aforementioned disadvantages, I would argue that private healthcare is still an optimal choice for people. The foremost reason is a large number of experienced practitioners working in these companies. In order to gain profits, these hospitals also need to boost their service quality to attract more customers. They spend a flood of funding on taking on veteran doctors and surgeons aiming to prove patients with excellent services. Furthermore, the cleanliness of medical services and the generous capacity of these companies are the reasons why they are quite popular among people despite the high costs. Hong Ngoc hospital in Hanoi perfectly exemplifies this choice of patients. Compared to some public hospitals with the overloading and the poor sanitation, this hospital offers a wide range of sickrooms which are sterilized daily and a number of considerate staffs, which is equivalent to the costs.

In conclusion, while the demerits attached to private medical services are definite, I believe with the number of seasoned doctors and the adequate cleanliness, these hospitals still have more merits than the negative ones.

Scientist agree that people are damaging their health by eating too much junk food. Some people think that the answer to this problem is to educate people. Others think education will not work. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is true that junk food has many detrimental effects on human health. While some people consider that education is an ineffective measure to solve the problem. I would like to contend that this practice would serve as a definitely workable solution to tackle such an issue.

On the one hand, there is a variety of reasons why educational programs might not be effective in the battle against junk foods. Firstly, the industrial lifestyle, in which people are all in a hurry due to work pressure, is the roof of this issue. They are always in short of time to prepare their meals. As a result, in spite of potential health risks, they choose fast food for their lunch or dinner to save time. Furthermore, hamburger or fried chicken are a delicious and addictive dish. Therefore, they have become a type of popular food especially to children and adolescents, who did not perceive the health consequences of their eating habit.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that educational programs could play a key part in preventing people from consuming an excessive amount of junk food. Firstly, through these programs, people might be able to aware of various harmful impacts of this kind of food. For instance, once people have gained adequate knowledge and awareness of life-threating cancer and other diseases caused by overeating fast food, they will curb the consumption of junk food that might pose serious threats to their health. Secondly, education about nutrition diets at school can help to form healthy eating habits for children at their childhood. This can promote acknowledgment of the benefits of healthy diets and warn them against the potential risks of fast food.

In conclusion, although there are many arguments against the education method, I firmly believe that educational measure plays a vital role to mitigate junk food consumption and deter the problem from being exacerbated further.

Many people say that cooking and eating at home is better for the individual and the family than eating out in restaurants or canteens. Do you agree or disagree?

It is widely argued that home food preparation and consumption are beneficial for an individual and a family rather than eating outside. Personally, I completely agree with this point of view from every perspective.

On an individual level, home-cooked meal is of indispensable necessity to ensure a healthy diet. As a matter of fact, many restaurants tend to generate greater profit by deliberately producing food with low quality of nutrition and hygiene, which causes food poisoning and long-term health issues, such as digestive diseases or a variety of cancers for instance, whereas cooking meal at home allows individuals to select fresh ingredients and prepare in the cleanest way as possible. Furthermore, having meals in a restaurant often costs a great deal of money which could be saved up by eating at home, and such money could be wisely spent on other important things such as the possession of a house or education purpose. More importantly, many young adults who live far away from home fail to maintain a healthy lifestyle and a sufficient budget due to a habit of having meals outside.

From another angle, dinning at home advantages family bonding and youngsters’ development. In fact, a developed world leads to the deterioration on family interactions due to a hectic lifestyle, especially in metropolitan cities. In other words, modern citizens barely have time for their family members on daily conversations and emotional supports. Therefore, dinning time serves as an effective way to fill out this gap and enrich family lives. Additionally, home – cooked meal allows parents to teach their offspring an essential life skill of cooking and a sense of responsibility towards to their family as when they get involved in related chores such as preparing and cleaning before and after meals. In conclusion, it seems to me that an individual and a family greatly benefit from consuming home-cooked meals and it should be encouraged rather than eating outside.

Some people say that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others, however, say that this would be little effects on public health and that other measures are required. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

While some people believe that building more sports facilities is the most effective approach to improve residents’ health, others argue that this has not many positive effects on public health and they require other measures. Personally, it seems to me that citizens could gain undeniable advantages from exercising at public sports places but other measures also play an integral role in public health improvement.

On the one hand, because prevention is better than cure, constructing sports facilities at public places is a useful way to prevent citizens from diseases. This makes not only physical but also mental health better since those places attract many people come and train together. Sports facilities, especially located in public spaces will inspire residents, even children and the elderly to exercise. Besides exercising physically together, citizens may share common things in their life such as mutual interests which bring them closer and recover their spirit after long working days. For example, after witnessing an upward trend in the number of people participating sports games at public spaces, Thailand recorded a significant reduction in the number of patients in hospitals to be treated by psychological therapy.

On the other hand, healthcare system and educational methods are making outstanding contributions to protecting public health. Firstly, modern hospital facilities which government is taking into account ensure patients’ peace of mind to be cured in case of suffering diseases. In addition, periodic health checks organized by public hospitals help people diagnose potential risks of diseases and find helpful treatments in an early manner. Lastly, educational methods raise resident’s awareness in process of disease prevention and health promotion which enable people to increase control over their health. Therefore, public health is protected actively by residents’ medical knowledge.

In conclusion, while sports facilities certainly improve public health, I do believe that other measures need to be invested in order to bring more medically mental and physical benefits to residents.

Model 3

It is often said that the growth in the quantities of sports facilities is the main factor that helps enhance public health while some others argue that there are better ways to do that. I am of the opinion that besides building more sports facilities, various measurements can be taken to improve everyone’s health.

On the one hand, building more sports facilities will encourage people to take part in sports activities which helps a lot in the improvement of their health as sports contribute to making us suppler, energetic and have a brawny body. It keeps us from some coming down with some certain diseases if we play sports regularly. I believe that there will be more and more people join in sports activities if more sports clubs are constructed which is convenient for individuals as sports facilities are available everywhere and they will not have any difficulty in finding one to participate in. Furthermore, having more sports departments will provide enough rooms for a great number of people and therefore the attendance is likely to be higher.

On the other hand, I agree that there are other ways to improve public health. Firstly, the food we eat every day is a major factor that decides our health condition. So I think the authority should encourage everyone to have a balanced diet and make sure that all food sold in the market is fresh and clean. Secondly, living environment also contributes to public health’s betterment. Hence, individuals should have to keep their neighborhood fresh and green if they want to stay healthy. People should plant more trees, clean their house regularly and keep the surrounding tidy.

In conclusion, in addition to the rise in the number of sports facilities, other ways such as improving food quality and living environment are also essential to help enhance public health.

Some people believe that the best way to improve public health is by increasing the number of sports facilities. Others think that this has little effects and other measures are required. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

People have different views about how people can maintain and develop their health. Some people think that having a great number of modern sports equipment for the public is the best answer, while others believe that there are several weaknesses of this way and they require other means. In my opinion, I strongly believe that if people realize both of them together, they will receive the efficient results.

There is no denying that regular exercise is essential in maintaining a healthy body.in other words, thanks to doing exercises, people are able to burn a large number of calories which helps to build healthy bones and muscles. In addition, after a hard day at school or offices, everyone demands to release stress and get energy for the new working day. It is suggested that the best way to achieve this is doing physical practices. For example, in the afternoons, individuals can walk around the parks and can keep fit by using the public facilities. As a result, the government should distribute more the free machines for their citizens.

On the other hand, it is argued that there are various other methods which have direct effects on people’s body to improve their health. Having a balanced diet is an instance. It means that people should consume nutritious food which consists of vegetable without chemicals and fresh meat and fishes. Especially, one of the impacts of an unhealthy diet is that the number of obesity is increasing rapidly recently because of eating junk food with the high fat.

Therefore, if people have a balanced diet, it can help people reduce a variety of diseases, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart attacks. All in all, when people have a healthy diet and a positive lifestyle they can have a long span life.

Everyone should become vegetarian because they do not need to eat meat to have a healthy diet. Do you agree or disagree?

With veganism trend, many people are convincing themselves that plant-based foods can suffice when it comes to daily nutrient needs, so they tend to remove all traces of meat from their diets. However, I have to (politely) disagree with the anti-meat argument.

There are a variety of reasons why people should have meat-related foods in their meals. First, many important nutrients derive from animal sources. For example, if we are meant to subsist on vegetables alone, we will experience vitamin deficiencies because of some of the vitamins can only be obtained from meat. Another reason is that meat helps keep blood sugar levels stable due to its fat and high protein content. Steady blood sugar level is critical in preventing diabetes, as well as other chronic diseases. Moreover, with a moderate level of blood sugar, people are less likely to drool for fattening snacks and sweets which are unhealthy foods.

Apart from the practical advantages expressed above, meat offers a host of critical health benefits. Firstly, when people work themselves to the bone trying to gain muscle, they have to nourish their body appropriately. In fact, they can take protein supplements, but the best source of protein is fresh meat. Meat contains vitamins and minerals like zinc that aid muscle growth, which assists in muscle repair. Secondly, meat is one of the best sources of iron, which boosts energy levels and combats fatigue. Iron deficits can easily put people at risk of anemia and low energy, which is why anemia is a chronic problem for vegetarians.

In conclusion, with the reasons mentioned above, I think that people should not cut meat out of their diets because it has too much to offer. 282 words


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Log In

Or with username:

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.