Topic 1: Some people say that general healthcare for citizens should be prioritized over

economic growth. What is your opinion?

The balance between healthcare quality and economic development has been a controversial topic of
discussion for decades. Regarding this, a number of people have proposed that universal healthcare
should receive more focused attention than the economy. In my opinion, whether it is better to prioritize
healthcare or economic growth of a region depends largely on its socio-economic situation.
To start with, maintaining a stable economy should be the top priority under most circumstances. To
the authorities, the economy provides the financial means to invest into technological development, which
is vital to various aspects of social life, including healthcare itself. Specifically, the monetary gains in the
hands of the government as well as large corporations allows for clinic, hospitals, and other medical
facilities to be constructed and equipped with state-of-the-art technology. This in turn provides the
citizens, especially those in rural regions with better access to medical attention. in addition, the economy
can also enable scientific research to be carried out at a decent pace, so as to discover more efficient
applications of existing technology in medical care. And to the general public, better economic situations
means reduced financial burdens in purchasing medicines, taking health check-ups or other medical
services. Also, the people can have a better, more nutritious diet, and benefit from private training
services such as yoga classes or gym sessions. All in all, the economy is essential in giving the people
healthcare of ideal quality.
However, it should be noted that in some specific situations, healthcare has to be given priority over
economy. An epidemic can be given as an example of such a situation. During the presence of an
epidemic, the entirety of the workforce that sustains the economy is placed under threat, and is in dire
need for scrupulous medical attention. Unless the safety of citizens is secured properly, factories will run
short of healthy workers, hospitals with become cramped with patients, and the economic growth will be
stagnated as the result. The consequences of neglecting general healthcare have been proven in the light
of the COVID-19 pandemic. While no affected country can go on developing their economy at normal
rates, those where public healthcare for the masses is prioritized have done exceptionally well in reducing
the economic impact of the spreading virus, compared to those which paid little attention to promoting
citizens’ wellbeing. It can be seen that though social distancing, minimized human contact and other
measures have more or less reduced overall productivity, they have contributed greatly to preventing
long-term effects on the economy.
In summary, though the economy is of great importance to the sustainability of general wellbeing,
sometimes healthcare needs to be placed first for the sake of the economy itself. I believe that provided
the right choices are made to balance between healthcare and economy, they will both serve their purpose
at full potential.
 Topic 2: Good health is not something we can buy. However, it can be an extremely valuable
saving account. Discuss and give your own opinion.
Money is often praised as the key to a desirable life, yet there are evidently plenty of crucial things
money cannot buy, good health is one example. Despite the advances in today’s technology, there are a
number of health conditions that no amount of money can alleviate. However, money can be invested in
different ways to ensure the quality of one’s health in the long run.
To begin with, there are various circumstances in which money is not the solution to health problems.
Specifically, congenital diseases that people are born with, or terminal ones such as cancer or health
problems are unable to be cured through medical means. Additionally, the proper treatments to numerous
genetics-related conditions are yet to be found. This is due to numerous limitations in technology
currently being adopted in healthcare, as well as the rapid development of new fatal diseases. In this
context, no matter how much money is spent on providing treatments, the suffering cannot be gotten rid
of permanently. In other words, money cannot always be traded for good health.
Nevertheless, spending money wisely to ensure the good quality of health can have enormous future
benefits. First, it is evident that those who adopt healthy eating habits and exercise on a regular basis tend
to live the happiest life and work the most productively. They rarely fall under the influence of fatigue,
burn-outs or common diseases. As a result, they get to enjoy a consistently active working life with an
uninterrupted flow of income to well cater for themselves and their family. Second, health in good
conditions serves to reduce the expense on healthcare services. In reality, a concerning number of people
fall victim to overly pricey medical bills due to over-indulgence in unhealthy habits, such as smoking or
drinking, thus placing great burdens on themselves. This necessitates that people stay in a healthy lifestyle
and try to avoid harmful habits in order to reduce the risk of having to give up a fortune to pay for
healthcare. Additionally, some people may choose to invest money in gym sessions or yoga classes,
which can offer considerable benefits for both mental and physical health.
However, it is far from the truth that money can never save people from life-threatening dangers to
their health. Numerous conditions require intensive measures to identify elusive diseases and to provide
treatments, especially when it comes to patients whose recovery can take a long period of time. Also,
technologically demanding services such as brain scans or surgeries are known to be financially costly,
which means money is highly important when it comes to intensive treatments.
In conclusion, though it is wrong to say that money can be traded for health, there are some exceptions
to make. I am convinced that lifestyle is the decisive factor in ensuring good health, so the best way to
have good health is to take up a healthy lifestyle, instead of relying on the power of money.
 Topic 4: Some people say that cultural heritage should be left intact because any form of
interference may ruin incorporated cultural values. What is your opinion?
Across the globe, many culturally significant sites are under perilous situations due to their age and
lack of attention to conservation. In this regard, some people believe that attempts to restore and preserve
these constructions are inadvisable, in that such actions may damage their original integrity. In my
opinion, interference with the aim to prolong the stability of historical sites are necessary, however, they
must always be carried out with careful planning.
To begin with, restoring or improving heritage is of great importance to the protection of its value.
First, cultural heritage is a strong representation of history. Historical buildings serve as reminders of past
events and the lessons associated with them, which the people can learn from their fathers and forefathers.
For example, a temple built to commemorate heroes of an ancient war, a memorial that honors fallen
soldiers in a brutal battle, a statue of a founding member of a community, and so forth, are all associated
with a story of the old times. To keep these pieces of architecture intact is to help people recognize their
precursors’ feats and to follow in their footsteps, thus making their community better day by day. Second,
heritage is where old customs and traditions of a region are practiced. Specifically, places such as
pagodas or churches were built so that the masses can carry out their religious duties. For this, it is
imperative that sites that have become run-down due to negligence or prolonged exposure to the elements
be restored and upgraded to meet the needs of the religious population. Yet, religion is not the only
spiritual value of cultural heritage, sometimes, for minor ethnicities, it can be their old ceremonies or
festivals that make their sites important. Whatever the case, the necessity of protection is undeniable.
However, interference to heritage may entail the risk of ruining its original essence if not executed in
the right manner. While restorations that deal with minor issues are rather simple, those that aim to
reinforce heavily damage structures may have to involve replacing some of the original parts with replicas
made of more durable materials. On the surface, this may seem nothing negative, but it also means the
traces small details with spiritual meanings, namely carvings, wall paintings or statues are lost forever. To
handle this shortcoming, I believe while considering the reconstruction job, experts should first think
through the methods to minimize the changes that they may have to make so as to ensure their work does
not alter the appearance of the subject more than necessary.
To conclude, while restorations are irrefutably needed if a cultural heritage is to be preserved, they
may potentially change the heritage in unfavorable ways. This means the act of intervention should be
done as considerately as possible.