（三）

　　Some people think that charity organizations should help people in great need wherever they live, while others think that they should only concentrate on people in their own country. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 20160820

　　There is no denying that aids from some charitable organizations are considerably functioning for people in poverty or emergent cases across all nations in contemporary society. The controversy, accordingly, emerges over the public that either people in the greatest need no matter where they live or people in the same countries as charitable organizations should be the prior recipients of donation.

　　People who need aids most severely are usually living under unbelievably hazardous circumstance, where their life are being threatened all the time or their basic demand for surviving cannot be satisfied. An instance in point is that citizens living in countries suffering from wars might face the problems of being killed anytime by whoever is armed or lack of clean drinking water. There is no one who is able to find out an excuse to say no to the help for them simply due to their different nationalities. Every donator would be proud of using their donation to save people's lives in any corner of the world.    

　　Charity institutions focusing on offering help to people in their own country would like to believe that providing help for donators' compatriots may easily arouse enthusiasm of people's participation in charity due to the immediate emotional connection between who are donating and who are receiving donation. Nevertheless, what majority of donators concentrate on most is whether their donation can be utilized most effectively. Naturally, they are more likely to pay for saving people's lives rather than enhancing people's living condition. With positive world view, everyone in this world should be treated equally regardless of their race or nationality.

　　In summary, unquestionably people in the greatest need deserve priority of aids from charitable organizations instead of those who come from the same country as donators do.

　　（四）

　　Some people think it is more important to plant trees in open spaces in towns and cities than building houses in these spaces. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 20160827  

　　Open spaces in cities and town have become rather precious unprecedentedly due to the fact that majority of cities and towns are far more congested than before. The populace, consequently, concern about how to utilize the limited open spaces, and either planting trees or constructing accommodations there is a wise choice.

　　For one thing, it is fairly evident that planting trees can elevate circumstance where people are living. Initially, trees can function as air purifiers, thus improving air quality in urban areas. Forestation in urban areas cannot only provide local residents with places for relaxation, but also promote urban landscapes that the public think is able to relax the local mentally. After working busily for 8 or 9 hours every day, people surely like spending their free time in walking in the park with a great number of trees or standing in their balconies with watching a huge piece of wood downstairs.

　　For another, people on the side of building houses suppose that it is an imperative tendency that cities ought to accommodate the increasing population according to two key reasons, the boom of population and the movement of population from rural areas to urban areas. Nevertheless, what they neglect is that this trend can only bring about negative consequences to people’s life. High density of population can definitely arouse congestion of transport in cities and shortage of social resources. By analogy, low quality of life is what the local can only enjoy living in cities with huge population.

　　On the basis of the above discussion, what our cities and towns need is trees rather than growing housing and mounting population.