观点类大作文，社会类话题
Some people think it is more important for the government to spend more money promoting a healthy lifestyle in order to prevent illnesses than the treatment for people who are already ill. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
题目来源：2021年5月8日亚太雅思大作文（重复20年8月8日亚太考题）
题目大意：
一些人认为，政府花更多的钱提倡健康的生活方式以预防疾病，比治疗已经生病的人更重要。你在多大程度上同意或不同意？
思路解析：
这是一道观点类大作文，讨论的是政府的支付应该是用于预防疾病还是治疗病患。这道题目的观点给出了两个逻辑，一是健康的生活方式能预防疾病，二是政府花钱提倡健康的的生活方式比治疗病患更重要。这两个逻辑都有漏洞的，因此可以持反对的意见。先来看头一个观点，健康的生活确实能够预防一些疾病，比如增加运动锻炼能够避免肥胖症、减少久坐不动可以改善关节问题、提高空气质量能够减少人们患上呼吸道疾病的风险。同时，如果能够提前预防疾病，也能节省对于医疗系统的消耗和成本支出。但是，我们既无法确定许多生活方式是否真的健康（比如素食主义，或是现在认为健康但是将来会推翻）、且并不是所有疾病都能靠健康的生活方式来预防的（比如新冠病毒）。因此，一味的投入更多的钱去提倡这种不完善的理念并强调其更重要是不合理的。
其次，来看第二个观点。提倡健康的生活方式预防疾病和治疗疾病很难说哪个更重要。我们要明白政府的资金很大一部分来自于纳税人缴纳的各类税收，比如在国内我们都会缴纳医保，因此政府有责任投入资金在医疗系统的维护上，当人们生病时给予治疗和拯救生命。对于生病的人来说，能够及时得到治疗也是他们很关心的。因此，从这个角度来看治疗疾病反而更加重要。
范文示例：
To access whether the government should invest money in the prevention of illness or the related treatment, I might have to consider how to define certain utterances made by this topic. From the perspective of the government, it is reasonable for them to spend money in the area that is beneficial to the overwhelming people; however, the take-home message is how the government is to define “importance”.
There are, of course, people out there holding that government spending should be better given out to prevent diseases from happening via promoting a healthy lifestyle rather than to treat those who have already been ill. To them, the number of people currently without health problems but awaiting a better living condition is always more than that of the latter. That means the macro-economic allocation should firstly fulfill the need of most of the tax contributors to make sure the investment is persuasive. The financial flows are considered useful if they are used to things like organic food produce, fitness facilities set in residential surroundings, or even better air condition. They are much closer to the daily health of the public and would be somewhat easily proved to avoid certain food-related, sedentariness-driven, and pollution-oriented illnesses. Whereas the expenditure invested in the medical industry seems comparatively “invisible”, as it is always enjoyed solely by the minority who are put into the physical problems, and would be also hard to judge whether this money would be finally valuable. There also exist failures in the treatment; it sounds obscured to verify whether the cured patients get well because of the financial input in the medical facilities or just because of their immunity.
However, the thinking presented above doesn’t allow one to think of real importance that the investment in the medical area may have, and precludes them from recognizing the potential hazards and irrationality that lie. No matter how a healthy life is to promote, one must admit that in some cases, the lifestyle that is deemed “healthy” by our current knowledge cannot effectively “prevent illness”. Then it is not surprising that in the hygiene history, some paradoxical health rules considering certain living habits would be meaningful or harmful, have finally been proved unacceptable. We should also realize that for certain illnesses, the solely healthy lifestyle is certainly not enough. People are prone to diseases easily if there were no systematic medical expertise, facilities, or resources in dealing with them. In that case, investing in a healthy life promotion is spectacularly meaningless. The myopic thinking given in the prompt distracts us from rationally thinking what the “importance” truly means; it is then incomparable between the two investment directions in terms of the importance because of our still limited knowledge to our current health care and to the unknown future.
In conclusion, I would agree that the policy of government investing in a healthy lifestyle cannot be considered more significant than in disease treatment.
相关词汇和语法结构：
Utterance 表达
Allocation 分配
Irrationality 不合理性
