出国留学首选一诺留学

ACT写作模拟范文分享

　　Most people want to be healthy, and most people want as much freedom as possible to do the things they want. Unfortunately,these two desires sometimes conflict. For example, smoking is prohibited from most public places, which restricts the freedom of some individuals for thesake of the health of others. Likewise, car emissions are regulated in many areas in order to reduce pollution and its health risks to others, which inturn restricts some people’s freedom to drive the vehicles they want. In asociety that values both health and freedom, how do we best balance the two? How should we think about conflicts between public health and individual freedom?

　　Read and carefully consider these perspectives. Each suggests aparticular way of thinking about the conflict between public health and individual freedom.

　　Perspective One

　　Our society should strive to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. When the freedom of the individual interferes with that principle, freedom must be restricted.

　　Perspective Two

　　Nothing in society is more valuable than freedom. Perhaps physical health is sometimes improved by restricting freedom,but the cost to the health of our free society is far too great to justify it.

　　Perspective Three

　　The right to avoid health risks is a freedom,too. When we allow individual behavior to endanger others, we’ve damaged both freedom and health.

　　Essay Task

　　Write a unified, coherent essay in which you evaluate multiple perspectives on the conflict between public health and individualfreedom. In your essay, be sure to:

　　· analyze and evaluate the perspectives given

　　· state and develop your own perspective on the issue

　　· explain the relationship between your perspective and those given

　　Your perspective may be in full agreement with any of the others, in partial agreement, or wholly different. Whatever the case, support your ideas with logical reasoning and detailed, persuasive examples.

　　Answer Sheet

　　The United States was founded on the principle that all citizens have the right to “life,liberty, and thepursuit of happiness.” As well known, lauded, and utopian as this phrase maybe, there is an underlying issue with the first two rights allotted to Americans. Life and liberty can sometimes come into bitter conflict; and example of said conflict is the restriction of so-dubbed“dangerous” activities in the name of the greater good. Therein lies a major quandary. Is it just to restrict liberty in the name of protection? The answer cannot be distilled down to a simple yes or no. There are those champions of Utilitarianism who argue for aggregate good. Others bang raucously on the battle drum of individual liberty;they state that Americans have the right to indulge in whatever they wish, aslong as it resides comfortably within the confines of natural law. Yet another faction screams that the right to public health supersedes the right of the individual to partake in an activity deemed harmful by the lofty authorities.Not one of these stances is satisfactory in the least, and this is why the debate marches on, with different drummer stapping out syncopated, disjointed arguments. The solution to the conflict between life and liberty is a glaring simple one, one that can be easily applied, thereby eliminating the need for argument. All individuals have the right to partake in self-destruction, such as consuming junk food, drugs,cigarettes, own a gun, drive a specific type of pollutant spewing car etcetera. However, the government has the duty to protectthe masses. The solution is, to put it bluntly, regulation.

　　Primarily,it is crucial to examine the problems with Utilitarianism and the rise of ananny state in acountry that touts the benefits of liberty. The 19th century fathers of Utilitarianism, such as John Stuart Mill had a lovely plan to minimize suffering, distilling the problems of society to a simple, almost mathematical equation. Their simple solution is as follows: the answer lies in whatever produces the highest rate of aggregate happiness. As lovely as this idea seems on the surface, there is a reason that it is flaccid and ineffective. There as on that it is inapplicable and unrealistic is obvious. How does one even being to measure aggregate good? The simple answer is that one cannot. The happiness that a smoker gets from a rush of nicotine is perhaps equal to the amount of displeasure a non-smoker experiences as they traipse through a cloudof carcinogens. Hence, the argument for the greater good of all fails to consider this. Humanity cannot be simplified into a succinct mathematical formula.

　　There are three examples that support regulation instead of an outright ban. These examples are former New York City mayor Bloomberg’s jihad on large sodas, the War on Drugs, and, as hinted at above, the increased restrictions on smoking. Bloomberg, motivated by his ownpersonal opinions on health, opted to ban king-sized carbonated beverages from being sold in “his” city. While it could be argued that Bloomberg’s the ban on big sodabottles comes from “a good place,” it is not his right to tell people how much sugar they are allowed to drink. This was foolish because banning a big soda will not prevent someone intent on drinking sodas from skirting the ban by simply buying more small sodas. In addition, this action by Bloomberg is borderline monarchical,since he was the individual deciding what is best for the residents of New York City.How are a handful of human beings drinking large sodas harmful to the public at large? The answer is that it is not. The War on Drugs is another example of illegalization of something deemed harmful doing more harm than good. Since the illegalization of drugs, the nation has not seen a decline in drug use. What it has seen is an increase in prison overcrowding. Now, the regulations placed on tobacco use in public places are a wholly differentmatter. Second-hand smoke has been proven to harm others, yet cigarettes remain legal. It makes sense that something that poisons others should be banned within the confines of buildings or in certain areas, such as schools or parks.By regulating and taxing tobacco rather than criminalizing or banning it,people are still allowed to smoke, yet are permitted to do so without harming others.

　　If the same regulation were applied to the aforementioned issues, such as illegal drugs, cars that spout black CO2 emissions, fire arms, and even the innocuous soda and candy that Bloomberg so fears, perhaps we could preserve freedom while also protecting the health of the masses.

　　以上就是小编和大家分享的作文了，希望对同学们有所帮助!同学们如果还有任何关于出国留学的问题，可以拨打一诺留学的免费热线400-003-6508或者010-62680991进行咨询，或者点击一诺留学官方网站http://www.yinuoedu.net/页面的“在线咨询”与一诺留学专家直接对话。微信订阅号：留学圈 (微信帐号：yinuoliuxue )