An essay by a “concerned citizen” intends to identify and discuss the controversy behind the United States government’s decision to discontinue funding the World Health Organization (WHO). Such a move is based on Donald Trump’s administration’s suspicions against the specialized United Nations agency (Horton 1330). The latter was accused of assisting the Chinese government in concealing the truth concerning the nature of the COVID-19 virus and the danger of its spread worldwide. In this regard, the essay’s author posits two questions that suggest that the U.S. government’s decision may be controversial. Firstly, it is asked whether and how Trump’s administration could know that WHO intended to protect the Chinese government. Second, the author inquires whether it is still justifiable to cease investments in the organization that is a world leader in research and healthcare delivery even if it behaved unethically.
However, although identifying the two main aspects of the problem is definitely a strong part of the essay, there are still many weaknesses present as the author failed to clearly articulate his/her ideas. Moreover, numerous grammar, punctuation, spelling, and word usage mistakes further decrease the reader’s understanding of the text. As a result, it is argued that the paper fails to succeed in its purpose. Therefore, the current essay seeks to discuss the issues of the aforementioned piece of writing and make suggestions that would help the author improve their work.
First of all, as mentioned before, the reviewed essay fails to articulate the controversies clearly. For example, the first paragraph raises questions concerning the validity of the information that WHO helped the Chinese government conceal the truth. In contrast, the second paragraph presents the reasons why people oppose the U.S. government’s decision. For this reason, it is suggested that the author considers rewriting the paragraphs, including and discussing the actual controversies. For instance, in the second paragraph, the author can maintain that although the U.S. sanctions against WHO’s behavior were justified, the consequence of such a decision for the worldwide healthcare system may be tragic.
Secondly, the essay suffers from flaws in the logic of narration. It seems that the author is not clear whether they seek to investigate the truth about the beginning of the pandemic or discuss the controversy of the U.S. government’s decision to stop sponsoring the WHO. Therefore, it is suggested that the author concentrates only on a single issue in one paper. In this regard, the essay should begin with the sentence about the ambiguity of the U.S. actions rather than with the fact that many people are concerned about the information about the pandemic’s beginning.
Finally, the existence of various in-text mistakes further deters the reader from understanding the essay. Firstly, the text has grammar issues, including word order (“how did began the pandemic”), wrong capitalization (“The Entire Globe”), and incorrect pronoun usage (the U.S. “had decided, they will not continue supporting…so it halts funding…”). Secondly, it has some punctuation mistakes, such as in this example: “…Does the World Health Organization has hidden the truth to protect China’s Government?. The controversy…” Also, the text suffers from numerous mistakes in spelling and word usage. For instance, the author uses “founds” instead of funds, “merge” where it should be immerge, “China’s Government” instead of the Chinese government. Therefore, the text must be accurately revised to ensure the clarity of the message.
In conclusion, it is argued that the essay fails to successfully analyze and discuss the controversy of the U.S. government’s decision to discontinue funding the WHO due to several reasons. First of all, the reviewed paper does not clearly articulate the issues that follow the actions of Trump’s administration. Additionally, the author extensively covers the aspect of the truth behind pandemic commencement which makes the reader dubious about the main purpose of the work. For those reasons, none of the arguments are persuasive enough to prove that the U.S. government’s decision is indeed controversial. Moreover, many mistakes in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and word usage further reduce the understanding of the text and overall impression.
Work Cited
Horton, Richard. “Offline: Why President Trump is Wrong About WHO.” Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10233, 2020, p. 1330.