Some people think that education for children in elementary must

be free to reduce poverty. To what extent do you agree or

disagree?

In conclusion, although there are mixed opinions on determining

whether making elementary education free is a necessary
requirement for reducing poverty, I think that this measure must
be combined with other approaches to yield an optimal outcome.
While removing the educational cost could help many children go
to school, the government must invest in broadening the
educational system to ensure the best quality of learning for all
children within their jurisdiction.

Some individuals claim that reducing poverty would necessitate a

complete removal of the educational cost for children in
elementary schools. Personally, I partly/totally agree/disagree
with this suggestion based on some reasons that are explained in
this essay.

However, there are other alternatives that would not require a

radical measure that puts more financial burden on the
government. In many nations, poverty is caused by the lack of
accessibility to education. For instance, most high quality
educational institutions are located in urban areas, while people
living in remote locations barely have any option to choose. These
underpriviledged individuals would grow up without any
competitive edge against urban citizens, leading to lower income
and possibly poverty.

The cost of education is not only the exclusive barrier that

prohibits children from going to school. In fact, many nations do
not have a good distribution of educational centers across their
regions, meaning that people living in remote areas may not have
any way to access high-quality education. This lack of accessibility
could be more serious than the affordability of education, as many
parents with financial resources still could not help their children
learn enough knowledge.

Giảm học phí thì mới hết đói nghèo.

Đói nghèo, là do học phí cao.

[poverty] -> [expensiveness of education].

Due to stagnant inflation, the cost of living in many nations,

especially developing ones, has increased, making it hard for
parents to afford their children’s education. Eventually, many
people grow up without necessary training, making it hard for
them to earn a stable income level and plunging them into
poverty. Thus, if education for children in elementary is made
free, at least most adults would be equipped with fundamental
knowledge, helping them contribute to the workforce and avoid
poverty.

NGUYEN TRONG DUY

22:04
Ngày nay, khi tỷ lệ lạm phát cao --> chi phí sinh hoạt tăng, chỉ đủ
để ăn uống, nhu cầu cơ bản --> học sinh sẽ không đủ tiền để
đóng học phí --> bỏ học --> đói nghèo --> nếu việc học sinh được
miễn phí sẽ kích thích học sinh đến trường --> nâng cao tri thức
--> có nghề nghiệp ổn định --> giảm đói nghèo, tăng đóng góp
cho xã hội
Nguyễn Trọng Nghĩa
22:04
Học phí cao dẫn đến các trẻ em nghèo không thể đi học -> trẻ em
không thể đọc và viết do không tham gia các fundamental class -
> Dân số tương lai sẽ có học thức thấp -> increase poverty in
country
Some people think that moving away from cities is the best option
for older people. Others suggest that the younger ones should be
doing this instead. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Some individuals claim that senior people would experience the

most significant benefits if they migrate away from urban areas.
Others, nevertheless, think that younger individuals should be the
ones who opt for this option. Although both schools of thoughts
offer merit, I believe that the ultimate choice should be
determined based on other aspects rather than age.

Older people – đặc tính gì

(the close proximity to industrial sites)
On the one hand, there are some reasons that explain the
recommendation that older individuals should move away from
cities. In urban areas, the high population density combined with
the intensive use of vehicles have degraded the quality of air and
water, causing many respiratory problems for residents.
Unfortunately, older people tend to have a weaker immune
system, making it more likely that simple respiratory issues could
eventually lead to serious illnesses. Thus, if they move away from
cities and enjoy their lives where the environment is cleaner, their
quality of living would be much higher, limiting healthcare
expenditure and prolonging their lifespan.

On the other hand,

Younger people, on the other hand, are not anesthesized from the
effects of high population density in urban areas. These
individuals often lack work experiences that can only be
accumulated through years of being a professional. Also, the large
number of candidates make it extremely competitive to enter any
job market. However, suburban or remote areas do not have such
problems, meaning that younger individuals would find it easier
to land a job.

In urban areas, the high population density means that the

demand for housing is exceptional, boosting the cost of rentals or
permanent real estates to an unprecedented level. Young people,
unfortunately, often lack a concrete financial foundation, making
it challenging for them to have a high quality accommodation. In
contrast, suburban or remote areas have a much more reasonable
housing market, allowing young people to have their
accommodations without damaging their already thinly stretched
finance.

In conclusion, after considering both perspectives, I think that

there are other factors other than age that should be taken into
account when it comes to moving away from cities. Older people
can still live in cities if they have access to good healthcare, while
young people with exceptional talents may be extremely
important contributors to the economy of urban regions.
However, for people with compromised health conditions or
problematic financial foundations, moving away from these areas
is always the best option.