Writing to Argue - Giving Aid to needy

Writing to argue: For or against giving aid to other countries.

More and more problems, conflicts and disputes emerge every-day. Sometimes between countries. These matters, at times, lead the world to see something they never even dreamt of. We see wars and invasions take birth. Be it for the right causes/ reasons or not, theses wars and invasions impact a lot of innocent civilians in an enormous way. These innocent people get their shelters, families and even basic necessities of life stolen away from them; they not only require but rely heavily on help from others.

The U.N provided 15,000 tons worth of aid to different countries, in just a few weeks, who had suffered some sort of damage. However, this aid only helped 39% of the people who went through some sort of physical loss as a result of perhaps war, some sort if dispute or natural disaster.

You may ask yourself, why would a country want to help other countries? Well the answer is simple. You will be credited for saving lives of thousands, if not millions.

Furthermore, the help from a certain country might be the only help ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

You may ask yourself, why would a country want to help other countries? Well the answer is simple. You will be credited for saving lives of thousands, if not millions.

Furthermore, the help from a certain country might be the only help that they are going to get. Other than that, the citizens who have suffered a huge amount of trauma will be left on their own state. So why don’t the politicians do the right and thing and provide a generous amount of aid to other countries, especially when they are in the power.

The opposition might argue that countries should be independent and should provide help themselves for their people. But those people are in need for help as some governments can only provide less or no amount of aid to their citizens. It can also be argued that other countries might feel small (or bad) that they’re being pitied upon and they are left to the mercy of other stronger countries. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that two countries can sit together and maybe talk about providing aid. This could even lead the two countries to friendship so this argument does not hold validity anymore.

People think that it’s a complete waste of money and time, however the fact is that it’s counted as a good deed. And the country might even get something back as a bonus. For example: if a country provides aid to people who need it in Iraq; Iraqi government might decide give them supply of oil as a gift. So you don’t only do a good deed, save lived and increase your reputation as a country, but you also get a favour from the country that you are helping.

There’s also a risk that other countries might invade a country and use aid as a Trojan horse. Be that as it may, the countries who have been hit with some sort of disaster need all the help they can get. And anyway, since when did a country’s independence get more priority than the large proportion of the population that are on death beds?

Hence I strongly think that stronger countries should provide aid to those countries who are much weaker.

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

sydneyhopcroft

15th of Aug 2012

Quality of writing

The Quality of Written Communication is fair. There are no major concerns when trying to understand what the candidate has to say from a grammatical viewpoint. However, some punctuation is misused and/or not used at all, for example, these errors can be as simple as - "why don't the politicians do the right and thing and provide a generous amount of aid to other countries, especially when they are in the power." - this sentence needs a question mark. Candidates must be more careful about these things when writing/typing their final draft answers.

Level of analysis

The Level of Argument is fair, with the utilising a number of various techniques suited to writing, however I feel there simply isn't enough of an effective argument presented here. There is plenty of rhetoric, and the candidate uses second persona address well to relate directly to the reader, but a distinct lack of rules of three, exaggeration, hyperbole, voice of the expert, and reliable statistical data limit this answer's effectivity. The reason the statistical data used by this candidate doesn't really sit well is because it reads like it was a figure whipped out of the air and has not been properly researched - if you're using facts, they must either be genuine or at least realistic. "15,000 tons worth of aid to different countries, in just a few weeks, who had suffered some sort of damage." - 15,000 tons of what? Where did the aid go? Which continent? What kind of damage? Economical? A result of natural disaster? Pandemic? All these need to be thought about in order to make the argument more stable and more solidly effective.

Response to question

This is a fairly well drawn-up answer, if a little naive in parts. The candidate makes good use of argumentative writing techniques such as statistics, rhetoric, and second person address, and also stops to consider an opposing point of view - examiners love to see this in Writing to Argue tasks, as it shows an ability to reason with an opposing view and still argue your point rationally. The candidate sensitively concerns the needs of countries who are less economically developed than others, though often their reasons why are a little unjustified or appear as a bit 'blue skies'-y, and not really considering the more complex reality of providing aid to LEDCs. So here, I would recommend providing a less 'emotional' response.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn