Back to Part 1 of written works

Back to Part 2 of written works

Academic discussion_Lipid screening

While I appreciate Arman's view, I tend to agree with Naya.

Subsidized lipid screening will help a lot of [k1: style—use a more formal quantifier] many people and even lower [k3: inaccurate word choice—use “reduce” for expenditure] reduce future government spending on people's health [k3: inaccurate/less formal phrase] public healthcare.

Steve raised a relevant point about anxiety, that may be created [k5: syntax—no comma before a restrictive “that” clause; k3: lexical mistake—unnatural collocation with “anxiety”] that may be induced after these tests, but [k5: punctuation—comma needed before coordinating “but”] , but I still think that it would be better to know about one’s health than live in ignorance [k3: lexical mistake—unnatural phrasing for “чем жить в неведении”] than remain ignorant.

Maybe [k1: style—use “Perhaps” in formal writing] Perhaps you even do not [k4: incorrect word order in negation] do not even care about yourself but [k5: punctuation—comma before “but”] , but there are always people, [k5: syntax—unnecessary comma before a restrictive clause] who are important to you. // Even if personal health is not your priority, the well-being of significant others depends on your being informed.

If you want [k3: inaccurate word choice—intended meaning “care about”] care about them, it will be much easier if you know their problems. // If you care about them, knowing their health conditions enables timely support.

For example, my parents friend [k4: incorrect possessive] parents’ friend had a certain disease [k3: vague wording—be specific/neutral] a chronic condition that occurred when he was old [k3: unnatural phrasing] was diagnosed at an advanced age.

He went to a government clinic, and doctors cured him after a lot of [k1: formality—replace with a precise quantifier] numerous courses of treatment and medication. // He was treated at a public clinic and recovered after multiple treatment courses.

All this treatment was free, and it is easy to notice that a lot of [k1: formality] substantial public money . [k5: sentence fragment—missing predicate] was involved. // The publicly funded treatment entailed significant expenditure.

If he made a test [k3: unnatural collocation] had taken a test some years before [k3: better temporal phrasing] years earlier, this disease would be diagnosed [k4: wrong tense in 3rd conditional] would have been diagnosed earlier, and right diet [k4: missing article] the right diet would not let it get more dangerous [k3: unnatural phrasing] would have prevented it from progressing, but this man did not have [k4: tense consistency—past is fine, but consider cohesion with the conditional] had not had enough money to do it. // Earlier screening could have led to timely diagnosis, and appropriate diet might have halted progression.

If this testing was supported by government [k4: subjunctive—use “were” + add article] were supported by the government, he would likely do it [k4: wrong tense—should be past counterfactual] would likely have taken it, and not as much public money would be spent [k1: logic/style — government support is already public money; the intended meaning is that preventive subsidies cost less than late-stage treatment] the smaller cost of preventive testing would have replaced the much greater expense of treatment.

In conclusion, I think that subsidizing routine lipid screening will help everyone and save a lot of [k3: tautology/repetition—earlier “a lot of” used; prefer varied formal phrasing] significant public funds, but [k5: punctuation—comma splice risk; prefer a clearer linker] however, it does not mean that other lifestyle investments should not be made [k3: clumsy double negation] should be pursued as well. // Subsidizing routine lipid screening can benefit the population and reduce public expenditure; nevertheless, investments in healthy lifestyles should also continue.