some people say that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger. Others say that economic growth is damaging the environment and should stop. Discuss both view and give your opinion.


Sample Response One

A large number of individuals maintain that economic growth is the best way to fix problems like not having enough food and being poor. But some other people believe that when we make the economy bigger, it hurts the environment a lot and we should stop. This essay will clearly talk about both of these ideas and say which one I think is better.

On one side, making the economy much bigger not only makes life better for many people but also solves a mix of different problems. When people want to know how well a country is doing, they often look at its economy. A strong economy can help build a solid base for a country. With these good things, people will get a lot of money, and that’s because their lives will get a lot better. For example, in Vietnam, the economy was very strong in 2019, and people had better lives. But in 2020, the economy got worse, and life became harder for them.

On the other hand, trying to make the economy grow really fast can hurt how good our lives are. To make the economy bigger, we have to make more things, and that can make the environment worse. In Vietnam, big factories make a lot of things, but they also make a lot of smoke that makes the air dirty and causes problems like the greenhouse effect.

To wrap up, it’s important to make the economy better to help with hunger and poverty, but we also have to take care of the environment for our health. So, if we can figure out how to do both, it will make life really good for everyone.

Sample Response Two

Numerous individuals hold the belief that implementing economic development represents the most efficacious approach to address issues concerning hunger and poverty. Conversely, an opposing viewpoint posits that economic development is responsible for causing severe environmental degradation, warranting cessation. This essay undertakes to clearly elucidate both aforementioned perspectives and proffers a recommendation favoring the more advantageous stance, as per my assessment.

On one facet, economic advancement not only engenders a substantial escalation in employment rates but also contributes to an improved quality of life. Predominantly, an unequivocal correlation exists between economic progress and the amelioration of starvation and poverty. The introduction of modernization and innovation across various domains is causally linked to a significant reduction in unemployment percentages. Furthermore, it elevates the societal benchmarks for individuals’ well-being. To illustrate, the transition from manual craftsmanship to technological integration in countries like Vietnam augments employment opportunities and subsequently enhances income prospects.

Conversely, rapid economic growth, if pursued, can pose a pronounced menace to the human quality of life. When governments channel investments towards bolstering economic expansion, there is a resultant surge in production activities across manifold sectors, inadvertently contributing to environmental degradation. A notable example lies in the extensive manufacturing facilities in Vietnam, whose heightened productivity coincides with the emission of copious volumes of pollutants, notably smoke, precipitating air pollution and engendering a greenhouse effect.

In summation, the imperative of fostering an economy that rectifies issues of hunger and poverty remains unquestionable. However, it is equally undeniable that a pristine environmental milieu holds paramount importance for the sustenance of human health. Hence, a harmonious integration of both imperatives stands to cultivate a life of fulfillment for society.


Sample Response Three

Economic progress stands as the linchpin of various societal aspects. However, once economic advancement is achieved, it becomes imperative to extend support to those who exist on the fringes, individuals who perceive themselves as perennially disadvantaged. This essay will explore divergent perspectives on the relationship between economic growth and poverty alleviation, as well as its potential environmental repercussions, before drawing a comprehensive conclusion.

Undoubtedly, economic growth wields substantial influence in diminishing poverty and enhancing the living standards within developing nations. To exemplify, an upsurge in manufacturing activities within countries not only creates employment opportunities but also augments financial prospects, thereby ameliorating the challenges of daily life. This economic elevation often contributes to a sense of contentment among individuals.

Conversely, the trajectory of economic expansion often intersects with environmental degradation. For instance, in instances where manufacturing industries seek expansion to bolster the commercial sector, the consequence might be deforestation, thereby diminishing forest diversity and disrupting ecological harmony. Thus, the very economic growth that spurs development might inadvertently threaten the environment and its delicate balance.

Upon analyzing the salient arguments, it becomes evident that a balanced viewpoint emerges. Economic advancement undeniably holds the potential to uplift living conditions and potentially eradicate poverty. However, this advancement might not be devoid of ecological costs, as expanding industries may contribute to environmental deterioration.

In summation, it can be inferred that while economic progress has the capacity to enhance living standards and potentially eradicate poverty, it might also bring about detrimental environmental consequences.

Sample Response Four

Numerous individuals hold the perspective that concluding the cycle of hunger and poverty is attainable solely through the avenue of economic development. Conversely, an opposing stance asserts that the ramifications of economic expansion on the environment necessitate its cessation. This essay intends to scrutinize both standpoints and subsequently express my personal viewpoint.

Indeed, the repercussions of economic growth have inflicted considerable damage on the environment. Initially, the incessant demand for industrial progress has led to the establishment of additional factories and manufacturing facilities, leading to a substantial surge in atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions – the primary culprits behind global warming. Furthermore, human endeavors, such as forest clearance for agricultural purposes, bear direct responsibility for the degradation of natural habitats for myriad plant and animal species, precipitating their perilous proximity to extinction. This, coupled with the unsustainable depletion of natural resources, poses grave existential threats, particularly in the face of the rapidly expanding global population.

However, advocating for a halt to economic development due to its adverse aspects remains an unreasonable approach, as economic growth remains the most efficacious strategy in combatting destitution and famine. A robust economy invariably engenders increased opportunities for employment, especially for those hailing from underprivileged backgrounds, consequently ensuring a stable source of income for these segments of society. As a result, they can secure sufficient funds to cover fundamental living expenses. Additionally, the role of economic expansion in addressing hunger is pivotal. Amplified financial resources, for instance, permit governments to invest in modern agricultural equipment, thereby automating labor-intensive cultivation and harvesting processes. This enhanced productivity leads to augmented food output and, ultimately, the eradication of hunger.

In conclusion, while the rationale for advocating the cessation of economic growth to safeguard the environment is comprehensible, I contend that such an extreme measure should not be the government’s sole reliance. The substantial advantages emanating from economic progress, not solely in the context of tackling poverty and hunger, far outweigh the drawbacks.