The (sheer) bulk of——the majority of，大部分，修饰可数、不可数都可以；
It is the responsibility of the government to provide health care to everyoneliving in that country.
Whisking the dust of the surface and opening the scroll of history,we can easily find out that the government who doesn't care about the lives ofthe human beings living in the country will certainly never last too long. Andtherefore, a good government should pay much attention to the living conditionof everyone in the country. However, the financial situations vary amongdifferent countries, and correspondingly there will be fierce debates about thecare system, such as health care-whether the government should provide healthcare to everyone in the country. From my point of view, I think the writer'sassertion is fundamentally correct, and it is the responsibility of thegovernment to provide health care to everyone.
First of all, the health care provides the basic care system for thehuman beings and it shows the basic humanity in the government, which I think issignificant especially for a government. When governing the country, only thiskind of humanity can make the people be willing to be under the charge of thegovernment. And as we know, the wars led by the people in the country aremostly caused by the unfair situation, which teaches us the importance ofhumanity. Therefore, the health care system can be an important foundation ofthe government. So in this degree, it’s really of great significance for thegovernment to provide the health care to everyone living in that country.
On top of that, the health care can make the people pay moreattention to their health, which is the more serious problem for a human being.Health is the base of the body, and if your citizens are unhealthy physicallyor mentally, you could never expect them to be happy in the country. Andwithout happiness, people may live with anger or wars but no harmony, which isthe worst thing for a government. And no harmony, no progress. In this aspect,providing the health care to the citizens in the country can indirectlycontribute to the progress and improvements which are mostly led by peoplethemselves. In a word, it is worthy of doing that.
However, providing the health care for everyone doesn’t suit everycountry in the world. As I said above, the financial situations vary amongdifferent countries, and as for some poor countries, providing the health careto everyone may be more a curse than a blessing. The money that government usesto provide the health care comes from taxes, and requiring them to providehealth care to people means the government will have to get more taxes from thecitizens, which is not suitable for poor countries. So as for these countries,health care to everyone is unavailable and impractical.Despite the fact that poor countries may have no chance to providethe health care to everyone in the country, for most of the countries in theworld, the government should do so, in order to ensure the health care forcitizens, which will be a total blessing and benefit for them. Also such asystem will be beneficial to the government itself. It’s a win-win situation!
FromIntegrated Writing of TPO-08
Before putting many doubts towards the accuracyof the memoir of Chevalier de Seingalt as is mentioned in the reading material,the professor gives us a careful consideration about the assertion in thearticle. And it's easy to find out that there're many fallacies in the article,which make the assertion unjustifiable. The professor mainly shows her argumentin the following three aspects.First of all, the article says that Chevalierborrowed considerable sums of money from a Swiss merchant, and therefore hecould not be rich. However, the professor mentioned that now that he spent alot of money on party and gambling, it was easy for him to run out of money.And when he ran out of money, the money needed sailing to Switzerland, and as aconsequence, he might borrow some money when he was waiting. The fact that hewas rich cannot be denied by the money he borrowed. Therefore, in this degree,the doubt in the article is illogic and unsubstantiated.Furthermore, the passage mentions that he couldnot remember clearly and accurately about the conversation with Voltairebecause of the long time between the conversation and the writing of memoir.However, he could write down everything he remembered in a note, and he couldrefer to the note when writing the memoir. And such a possibility makes theconclusion in the article unbelievable to us.The last but not the least, the passage saysthat he escaped from the jail with the help and bribe of his friends, but notby the way he mentioned in the memoir. Nevertheless, the professor argues thatthere were many other gays in the jail who had more powerful friends thanChevalier did, but only he escaped. Also, the jail repaired the ceiling afterhis escape, and that may be an evidence of his escape by the way of ** ahole. In a word, the statement in the article is not logic enough.
According to the professor, the readingpassage makes several fallacies with unsubstantiated evidences and illogicconclusion. And the professor believes that the memoir of Chevalier is prettyaccurate.