aaanonymousss
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Hi! Does anyone mind giving me feedback on this practice LNAT essay that I've done under timed conditions? Thank you!

Should everyone be entitled to free healthcare?

Everyone should be entitled to free healthcare. In the UK, the National Health Service has provided free, universal healthcare for everyone for over 70 years, and it has become an integral part of British society. Although it may mean increased taxes for the general public, free healthcare reduces social inequality in accessing healthcare, irrespective of your differences such as class, gender and race.

Let us address the argument against free healthcare for everyone due to increased taxes for the general public. Indeed, the NHS requires several billions of pounds every year, and majority of the revenue for it is raised through tax. When the general public pays higher tax, they are left with reduced disposable incomes. This can lead to lower economic growth in the long-term, as reduced disposable incomes mean individuals have less money to spend on consumption, which drives economic growth up. Lower economic growth, of course, can have a detrimental impact on society, such as unemployment. However, the same thing can also be said for healthcare: the absence of free healthcare can have a detrimental impact on society. Free healthcare for everyone means that, irrespective of your social and economic status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, you are able to access healthcare to keep your body in good health. This may particularly be beneficial for those on lower incomes, since they are less likely than those on higher incomes to be able to afford private healthcare. Free healthcare means that the less privileged will not have to endure poor health, or experience greater levels of stress and anxiety when raising money when they are in need of healthcare, or in worst cases, experience death.

An economic advantage of free healthcare for everyone is lower unemployment, assuming that free healthcare is provided by the government, such as the NHS. This is because when the government is providing free healthcare for everyone, it is more likely to be nationwide and so will be in higher demand. For example, there is high demand for the NHS. So, healthcare-related jobs, such as doctors and nurses, are in higher demand – the NHS currently employs tens of thousands of people. This leads to the increased employment of people into these healthcare-related jobs, and therefore reducing overall unemployment. Reduced unemployment leads to higher economic growth, thus contributing to a more prosperous nation.

To conclude, everyone should be entitled to free healthcare. For example, due to the NHS, everyone, irrespective of their differences, is able to access free healthcare. This has improved the overall health of the nation. Although there are economic disadvantages such as increased tax for the general public, there are also economic advantages such as decreased unemployment, contributing to the prosperity of a nation.
0
reply
Dominininc
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
It is good you have given a clear judgment to the answer in the introduction however i would advise you lay out your definitions first. This will help you stay focused on your interpretation of the question.

For instance i interpret this question as like 'should the affluent have to pay for their healthcare and only the poor get free healthcare' and i would lay my terms outs in relation to that.

Whereas you define it by the system of the NHS in the UK, so youre essentially giving an assessment of free healthcare in the UK.

So whilst both of our interpretations answer the same question they are inherently different to each other. This is completely fine, the LNAT questions intentionally have a large amount of scope, however it does make it easier to understand a question once you have defined how you interpret it and how you will assess the question ie state you will be assessing the social and economic factors as to why healthcare should be free.

You have layed out your arguments clearly. However the arguments you refer to in the introduction dont correspond with your arguments later in the essay. You say that the reason people should have free healthcare is because it is 'intergral part of society' however you argue it is economically beneficial later on and argue for the morality of free healthcare. Therefore you may benefit from writing your arguments into the introduction after you have finished the essay (this is what a lot of people do to ensure there is conintuity throughout the piece even though you may not know your arguments at the start)

Now for the main body, you clearly know how to argue your points however i think structurally it could be improved. I think using an economic factor with a social counterargument is weaker than an economic factor with an economic factor. Therefore your second paragraph would be a better counter argument to the argument at the start of the first paragraph.

So for instance, you could write..

Healthcare should not be free because it is economically damaging...then explain why this means healthcare shouldn't be free along the lines of increased tax and less affluence etc...(but then go onto to provide a counter argument to show why this isnt an important factor such as)..... However this is outweighed by the economic benefits such as the jobs it produces.... and then explain why this outweighs the initial factor.

I know this may seem a little pedantic but it will make your argument more structural. It also leaves you with the ability to go onto to asses other large factors such as the social/philosophical arguments for free healthcare.

Your conclusion is also good, you have summarised your arguments, acknowledged the arguments that disagree with this argument and given a clear judgment. You have avoided 'sitting on the fence' which is like the number one no no in essays so that is good.

Overall this is very promising as with the tweaks to structuring and the introduction you should do really well.
2
reply
DarkMatterX
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by aaanonymousss)
Hi! Does anyone mind giving me feedback on this practice LNAT essay that I've done under timed conditions? Thank you!

Should everyone be entitled to free healthcare?

Everyone should be entitled to free healthcare. In the UK, the National Health Service has provided free, universal healthcare for everyone for over 70 years, and it has become an integral part of British society. Although it may mean increased taxes for the general public, free healthcare reduces social inequality in accessing healthcare, irrespective of your differences such as class, gender and race.

Let us address the argument against free healthcare for everyone due to increased taxes for the general public. Indeed, the NHS requires several billions of pounds every year, and majority of the revenue for it is raised through tax. When the general public pays higher tax, they are left with reduced disposable incomes. This can lead to lower economic growth in the long-term, as reduced disposable incomes mean individuals have less money to spend on consumption, which drives economic growth up. Lower economic growth, of course, can have a detrimental impact on society, such as unemployment. However, the same thing can also be said for healthcare: the absence of free healthcare can have a detrimental impact on society. Free healthcare for everyone means that, irrespective of your social and economic status, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, you are able to access healthcare to keep your body in good health. This may particularly be beneficial for those on lower incomes, since they are less likely than those on higher incomes to be able to afford private healthcare. Free healthcare means that the less privileged will not have to endure poor health, or experience greater levels of stress and anxiety when raising money when they are in need of healthcare, or in worst cases, experience death.

An economic advantage of free healthcare for everyone is lower unemployment, assuming that free healthcare is provided by the government, such as the NHS. This is because when the government is providing free healthcare for everyone, it is more likely to be nationwide and so will be in higher demand. For example, there is high demand for the NHS. So, healthcare-related jobs, such as doctors and nurses, are in higher demand – the NHS currently employs tens of thousands of people. This leads to the increased employment of people into these healthcare-related jobs, and therefore reducing overall unemployment. Reduced unemployment leads to higher economic growth, thus contributing to a more prosperous nation.

To conclude, everyone should be entitled to free healthcare. For example, due to the NHS, everyone, irrespective of their differences, is able to access free healthcare. This has improved the overall health of the nation. Although there are economic disadvantages such as increased tax for the general public, there are also economic advantages such as decreased unemployment, contributing to the prosperity of a nation.
Hey,

I believe that Dominininc has covered most of what I would've added.

There is one thing that I would like to point out and that is your paragraph talking about the "argument against free healthcare for everyone due to increased taxes for the general public" seems like a Strawman argument even if it is a genuine concern. The way you counter this argument isn't very convincing and almost seems too easy. While your points for free healthcare are really well-placed and structured your counterargument is a tad bit lacking. Your counter-argument should be really strong, strong enough to make it seem like your stance might be wrong, and then convince your readers that your side is indeed right and point out a flaw in the counterargument. I hope what I said makes sense and was genuinely helpful.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (317)
57.22%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (77)
13.9%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (62)
11.19%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (49)
8.84%
I haven't started researching yet (28)
5.05%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (21)
3.79%

Watched Threads

View All