People should look after their health as a duty to the society where they live, rather than their own benefits. What extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Answer 1
Whether ensuring a healthy lifestyle should be deemed as public responsibility or individuals’ own advantages has evolved as a heated topic of controversy. While I consent to the social implications of personal fitness, I opine that the populace should retain their health in their interests.
In the first place, no sooner do individuals allocate their time and efforts for enhancing their health conditions than they can contribute as viable human resources to social betterment. For example, on account of constant training under a myriad of harsh conditions, loyal and strong-willed soldiers will be physically well-qualified to shield national security and sovereignty from abhorrent conspiracies of enemy forces. Simultaneously, when citizens are in good physical conditions, they have the competence to entirely devote themselves to the social development thanks to the capability to work for long hours with high productivity.
However, there is a common consensus that a good health lays the foundations for life fulfilment, which firmly endorses the viewpoint that people are obliged to maintain their welfare as personal benefits. By virtue of staying healthy and getting involved in recreation activities, people are bound to greatly enjoy their life. In addition, it is indisputable that the medical treatments often places a large financial burden on individuals, especially those suffering from chronic diseases like diabetes, tuberculosis or cancer. Therefore, through the medium of initiating appropriate diets and workout schemes, people will be able to prevent both illnesses and money loss.
All in all, it is my belief that citizens should take the maintenance of their health into serious consideration, as this benefits not only every single person but also the whole community.
Sample Answer 2
Some people say that residents should take care of their health as an obligation to the state instead of doing so to benefit themselves individually.
It is understandable as to why individuals can reap certain benefits if taking care of their own health. Firstly, they would enjoy an excellent physical and mental health, crucial to accomplishing a sense of contentment in life. A normal person who frequently jogs on the treadmill, lifts the weights or keeps doing the push-ups at the gym, for example, can build up strong muscles, giving him a well-proportioned body. Secondly, as individuals are those who have a perfect insight into their own health condition, they can adjust their daily diets appropriately, which will bring more productive outcomes. If a person is underweight, he will need a higher daily amount of fat and protein while an obese person is supposed to slash his regular intake of fast foods and consume more vegetables and fruits.
I believe that rather than the masses, it is the state’s obligation to ensure that its citizens are leading a healthy lifestyle. Such is some people’s ignorance of their consuming habits that government intervention is required and only their power is effective. Government should impose stringent checks or place an outright ban on foodstuffs of unclear origins which contain health-damaging substances (preservatives, additives) for human health. As another step, cigarettes or fast foods should be levied high taxes on to discourage citizens from this unhealthy habit. Besides, once all citizens are living healthily, a nation can hugely profit from a robust workforce, contributing to the economic well-being. Students would study more effectively without skipping classes due to poor health, or workers would make fewer mistakes, resulting in improved productivity.
In conclusion, it seems to me that both the government and individuals are direct beneficiaries, so they should join hands in this issue.