You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Present a written argument or case to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic.
Should wealthy nations be required to share their wealth among poorer nations by providing such things as food and education? Or is it the responsibility of the governments of poorer nations to look after their citizens themselves.?
You should write at least 250 words.
Use your own ideas, knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and with relevant evidence.
Model Answer 1 :-
Although there is a wide disparity in the resources available to the people living in different countries, still, I would argue that the government should be accountable for fulfilling its citizens day to day needs.
It is imperative that the government in each country is held responsible for providing its citizen basic needs. Firstly, if help is always at hand, some governments may not put in all their efforts to meet both hands, while, few others are going an extra mile to cater for their own as well as the other nations demand. Poor nations can borrow money from world bank to set up, for instance, short scale industries to create employment for its people and boost the economy in long run. Various other steps can always be taken by venturing in trade and commerce for well- being of the nation.
Secondly, it may seem unfair to the citizens of the nation providing support that the taxes paid by them for the development of their own nation are being used towards others. Furthermore, it is also a herculean task to categorise all the nations into rich and poor, and then to select a criterion to decide the priority among nations seeking help. Despite all that, we all should be ready to offer help to a nation in times of crisis that arise due to unforeseen circumstances, for instance, floods, earthquake, hurricanes.
In conclusion, the common needs of a man should be looked after by the ruling government he chose for himself while in times of calamities, we all should stand united for each other.
Model Answer 2:-
Some school of thought believe that strong economies should aid the poor countries in terms of supporting them in their primary needs, while some others think it is due to the local governments to deal with such internal problems. Although both the parties have some strong justifications to support their ideas, I personally agree with the first group more because of several key factors including lack of resources in such poor economies, the fact that we are living in a global society.
The first important point I would like to mention is the fact that most of the poor economies are suffering from lack of having enough facilities and resources in the fields such as education and food. As the first may lead to making them even poorer and also increases the number of criminal actions and even worse in some cases potentially making some people joining terroristic groups. While the latter causes several unpleasant results such as children disability and death.
Another important thing is we should not forget all the people in the world are part of one community, the human being. Regardless of all the things makes us different, we all share the same biology. Therefore, as a human everybody should try his/her best to do what he can to make the world a pleasant place for the others. Moreover, as it mentioned above, some of the negative results such as terrorism may directly affect the other nations including first world countries
To put everything in a nutshell, supporting the poor countries to make a better life for their people will cause several pleasant results not only domestically but in some cases internationally and more importantly, it all is justified by humanity.
Model Answer 3:-
Some people think that rich countries should support poor countries by providing adequate food and education, while others argue it is the government’s task to look after its citizens. In my view, wealthy nations should support the poor only if there is a scarcity of natural resources in the country.
There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the well-being of its citizens. In democratic countries, the government is elected by its people so it is the responsibility of the government to improve the quality of life for the people. The government should define long term plans to improve the welfare of the citizens and provide high standard of education for the people. It should identify and use the natural resources to improve the economy of the country. Lack of planning will result in poor education and low standard of living.
On the other hand, due to inadequate natural resources, some countries are unable to raise the standards on their own. Countries like Somalia are affected by severe droughts and water scarcity which make it difficult for people to lead normal lives.
In these cases wealthy nations should come forward to improve the quality of life. Without their help, the government is unable to meet the basic needs of its people. They are unable to design the long term plan because of lack of funds and scarcity of natural resources.
To conclude, rich countries should help the poorer nations only if the later do not have abundant natural resources to support their people. If they have good local resources then it should be the concerned government’s responsibility to improve the standard of living for its citizens.
Model Answer 4-
There is a considerable debate over charity and aid system in first world countries. This essay is about the necessity of providing life supplies and education to nations which can’t stand on their feet and why these nations should be responsible for providing aid to poor countries.
First of all, it all started with the invention of steam power. Human kind’s exploration chances have risen enormously with this invention and as a result of this colonisation became a real deal. While masters increased their wealth, slaves’ life standard decreased tremendously. Because of this decrease in life standards, many of the former colonies don’t have the power to provide their own nation with even basic requirements. From another point of view, living and education is a birth right of humanity and these shouldn’t be a concern normally. Wealthy nations should also take responsibility to provide suitable life needs it most. For instance, anyone who seeks for justice should have right to escalate their case to European Court of Human Rights and similar processes should be available for people who are seeking for their born rights such as foods and education.
On the other hand, the main reason why people favour the idea not to share their wealth with others is that it would mean the end of colonisation worldwide. They believe that they had plenty of time to improve their economy. As a result of this, it was the poor nations’ problem to take care of their mess.
In conclusion, my personal view about charity and aid to poor nations is a responsibility of both parts. Wealthy nations should provide local governments with aid and guidance to offer their nation with better life standards.
Sample Answer 5:
Our world is a very diverse place, and not always in a good way. There is a huge disproportion in terms of wealth and resources across different countries, and this state of affairs raises the question of whether richer nations should aid those less fortunate or rather let them fight their battle for themselves.
On the one hand, giving poor countries food, resources or money without getting anything in return, such as goods or services, is bound to remove any motivation for them to develop and to do something to improve their situation. This may create a vicious circle, similar to the common problem where some unemployed people abuse the welfare system by not even trying to find a job. This concern is one of the top reasons why some are convinced that it is the governments of poorer nations who should be responsible for the well-being of their citizens.
On the other hand, many people believe that helping countries that suffer from poverty is a moral duty and can benefit both rich and poor nations by making the world a better place. They argue that the right type of aid, first of all, education, gives poor countries a chance to get back on their feet and start changing for the better. The question of whether the charity is a good approach to dealing with poverty has always been a matter of debate.
Personally, I think that although wealthy nations should not be obliged to help the poorer ones, it seems like the right thing to do. Apart from humanitarian reasons, it can also bring about some political and economic benefits to the donors as they are creating a foundation for future cooperation and potential trade.
Sample Answer 6:
Today’s world is divided into industrialised countries and poor nations, where the main difference between them is the amount of money that they spend in the healthcare system, commerce and infrastructures. Most of those developing nations are living under the poverty line, and in my opinion, wealthy nations have the ability and the responsibility to help them.
Rich countries are more capable of helping those less fortunate countries than their own governments because of many reasons. Firstly, most poor nations are buried into debts as a result of their unbalanced finance and inexperienced or corrupted administrations. This reflected in a weak and failed healthcare and education system and a weak international trade policy. This vicious cycle will continue unless rich countries take the responsibility of helping those nations and minimising the huge worldwide economic difference. For example, the World Bank can nullify their debts or rich nations can help them with some projects to help to pay for these debts. Secondly, many of those countries are living in subhuman conditions because of extreme poverty and epidemic diseases such as AIDS and cholera and they either do not have the knowledge or the sufficient medical resources to improve this situation. However, developed countries can donate free drugs, and send doctors and nurses to treat and educate infected population so as to prevent these diseases from spreading.
On the other hand, many people from poor countries immigrate to rich countries to work or study. This result in many consequences: the first consequence is that they help to improve the economy of developed countries. For example in countries like the UK or FRANCE, there are lots of emigrants who prove themselves by their knowledge and hard working. Then it seems to be sensible that these wealthy nations should, in turn, help their home countries. In addition, the economy of poor countries gets worse because they have lost their most skilful and educated people while they need them to work and lead these nation to a better future. Finally, it would be difficult for poor nations to help themselves and grow without basic needs such as food, shelter, treatment and education.
In conclusion, I believe that it would be less likely to see any improvement in developing nation economy and status without the cooperation of wealthy countries.