Paraphrase lại đề bài: 1 câu.

Thesis Statement (Giới thiệu nội dung chính của toàn

Introduction
bài): Trả lời trực tiếp câu hỏi của đề bài.

Xây dựng nhà cao tầng để người dân ở sẽ giúp tận

Body 1 dụng diện tích đất đai

Mở rộng đất để xây nhà không phải là giải pháp tốt vì

Body 2 nó rất có hại cho môi trường

Paraphrase lại Thesis Statement và nêu lại quan điểm

Conclusion

It is true that housing shortages are a perennial problem in many crowded cities. While
horizontal cities may contribute to the safety of citizens, I believe that vertical cities are more
beneficial in terms of the housing scarcity in densely populated cities.

Proponents of horizontal housing can point out that creating houses on wider lands may
reduce population density in the city center. Today many people living in apartment blocks
are packed in a small area. This puts pressure on urban infrastructure, and the traffic roads
become more heavily congested. Building houses by widening area exerts a positive
influence as more lands are available to build urban infrastructure and widen the road
system. Thus, traffic jams in the rush hours can be eased, so the air quality will be
improved as well. For example, in Hanoi, Vietnam, a major part of suburbs is cleared to
build more houses for citizens, so the level of air pollution in Hanoi has decreased
significantly.

However, the benefits detailed above are negated by advantages of vertical housing.
Constructing taller buildings is an effective solution of increasing demand for housing. Today,
there is an influx of people migrating from rural to cities to find jobs and accommodation. As
a result, land and low building's price are much more expensive than those of high-rise
buildings, so many people choose apartments as their best way. They can improve their
standard of living by saving up some money for other intentions. Then, more land can be
available for other crucial infrastructures such as hospitals, schools and medical centers,
which can address critical issues associated with the overpopulation.

In conclusion, horizontal cities facilitate some positive living conditions but taller cities make
more sense in the modern world. It is important to strike a balance and mitigate the issues
caused by growing urban populations with quality infrastructure.

Main idea:
Fact: people are packed in a small area -> put pressure on urban infrastructure -> traffic
congestion becomes the norm
reduce population density in the city center. More land available to build urban infrastructure,
widen the road system -> to ease traffic congestion in the rush hour. The air quality will be
improved -> contribute to public health

However, the benefits detailed above are negated by

Taller buildings contribute to lowering the prices of housing. Fact: Today there is an influx of
people migrating from rural to cities which increases the demand for housing. As a result,
prices of housing increase, so people cannot afford. => construct high-rise buildings/taller
buildings/ high-rise apartment blocks.

They can improve their standard of living

Many people say the gap between rich and poor people is wider, as rich people become richer and
poor people grow poorer. What problems does this situation cause? And what measures can be
done to address those problems?
 Bất bình đẳng trong xh => tăng tội phạm
 one who has capital has the chance to improve his business and obtain
welfare
 poor guys are less likely to build a business because of the absence of
capital
 the importance of social justice
 I firmly believe that rich people spending the money on improving the
lifestyle of poor people and better go vernment tax policies will
increase the chances of closing the income difference between the rich
and poor.
 This situation has presented a wide variety of problems to the community
and it has negatively affected a country's developments. To tackle these
problems I believe that governments and authorities should take
necessary steps and implement laws to improve the living standards of
financially poor people.
It is true that the economic inequalities between those who are rich and poor is becoming greater in
contemporary society. While this situation can cause some problems in terms of unfair living
condition and high crime rate, there are some solutions that can be adopted to tackle these issues.

The increasing gap between rich and poor people might bring about some various issues. Firstly, it is
more difficult for impoverished people to earn a decent living such as needs for food or
accommodation. They are likely to involve in crimes such as robberies or burglaries because of their
lack of financial ability. Secondly, when the gap grows extreme, the number of people living under
the poverty line will go up, and they hardly access the education service as well. For example, while
young people who come from a wealthy family can afford studying abroad and easily get well-paid
jobs, poorer ones tend to have difficulty approaching education. As a result, there is little chance of
them having stable jobs, and they may continue living in poverty.

Nevertheless, I believe that the above problems can be tackled by some effective solutions. The
government and authorities should take necessary steps and implement laws to improve the living
standards of financially poor people. One of the best solutions is that governments should impose
higher tax rates on the rich. This would help minimize economic inequality in society. Furthermore,
authorities could provide free education to give equal opportunities for people coming from an
impoverished background. Universities can offer grants for poor students to help them become
competent workers in the future.

In conclusion, while wealth inequality can cause some complex issues, there are still many practical
solutions. By providing free education and changing tax policies, governments and authorities can
create a fairer society.
Research into new types of medicine and treatments are essential for improving health and deal
with diseases. Who do you think should fund this research: private companies, individuals or
governments?
- Chính phủ nên là người tài trợ cho các nghiên cứu y học

 Trách nhiệm hàng đầu của chính phủ là đảm bảo chất lượng cuộc sống của người dân nên họ
cần đảm bảo người dân có thể tiếp cận với thuốc men và chữa trị với giá cả phải chăng. IN
fact, chính phủ nhận thuế định kì từ người dân, mục đích của thuế là để phục vụ cho cs của
dân => thuế sẽ dung để xây dựng cscv, đầu tư trang thiết bị y tế
 Người dân cũng nên tài trợ cho các nghiên cứu này vì chính họ sẽ là người hưởng lợi trực tiếp
nếu các nghiên cứu này thành công.
- effective resource of economic support 
- The government, as the collector of tax, is more financially powerful than
other sectors. Some types of research dominated by private sectors pay little
attention to the benefits for whole society, such as unreasonable pricing,
while the government regulates the medicine research based on various
factors, such as the quality and affordability.
- It is sensible for the government to invest in research into medical
treatments. The government is indebted to its taxpayers and has
an obligation to channel taxation into essential services, which
encompass health care. However, investments in hospitals and
facilities alone are not sustainable in the long run since the people
in power are not solving the root cause of the problem. As a
result, while allocating money to the national health care system,
the government should also sponsor laboratories in which clinical
trials and research into illness and disease are carried out. In the
long run, the outcomes would be more diseases will be kept at
bay thanks to the findings from the labs.
- The government has the responsibility to serve for citizens including solving their
health problems. Health care is public service. They has the organising ability to
collect money from tax payers effectively, which can guarantee the stable sources of
money.a\
- governments should play the main role in the improvement of health care research.
It will be better if the private companies and the individuals can volunteer to donate
money for them.
- private companies should take more obligation on the new research, because each
successful project brings billions of profit to the investors and developers. For
instance, according to a research by GEN, the top 15 medicines sold over 19 billion
US dollars during 2018, all participants have gained a huge benefit. Hence, they have
to pay more attention to the new research, no matter their purpose is earning more
revenue or benefit human beings.=> công ty tư nhân có tiềm năng tài chính hơn,
- In the end, governments have a responsibility to take care their residents’ health,
and they collect a large amount of tax from taxpayers and business in the name of
health care. For example, Australian tax residents have to pay 2% of their total
income for Medicare levy annually. Moreover, governments often invest many
medical projects and gain a lot from those investments. So that, there is no doubt,
the government should put money into those projects.
As medical research is crucial to improve standard of living in modern society, it is a complex
problem that who should take the responsibility of fund these researches. From my perspective, both
the government and private companies should assume responsibility for public health as their
financial potential.

To begin with, the government is best suited for financial backing because improve people’s quality
of life is one of the main duties of the government in a country. The government, as the collector of
tax, is more financially powerful than other individuals. They collect a large amount of tax from
taxpayers and business to contribute to the government budget, which allocates common wealth to
public services especially heath care, building infrastructure and increasing social welfare. Take
Covid-19, an infectious disease, for example. It has high death rates around the world and causes
economic downturns in many regions as well. Consequently, authorities should allocate funding to
medical treatments such as effective vaccines and prescription drugs.

Besides, private firms are significantly suitable for funding medical research as their financial
potential. Private companies are usually well-equipped with modern facility, so it may ease the
financial burden and spare the pressure from the public in situations where medication is in
desperate and urgent need. As a result, private companies should take more obligation on the new
research, because each successful project brings billions of profit to the investors and developers. For
example, an average medical project on AIDS invested will bring profit for a company up to 2000$.
Consequently, they have to pay more attention to the new research, no matter their purpose is
earning more revenue or benefit human beings.
In conclusion, the government plays a key role in medical research as a regulator. I believe that
private companies should also join hand with authorities to deal with health problems but they
should be kept within clear limits.