Can writing experts hlep me correct my writing? Many thanks.
Some believe that wealthy countries should provide assistance to poorer countries when they suffer a natural disaster. Do you agree?
Catastrophes from nature, like earthquakes, tsunami, or volcano eruption, are unpredictable and, sometimes, unavoidable, in which under-developed countries might have little ability to deal with these strikes. Therefore, well-developed nations, some may say that, should take account of these catastrophic effects even it is out of their territories. In this essay, I would like to explain my agreement on it.
Seeing the global population as a whole, the subsequent effects from those natural disastrous events might further reduce the global recovery rate, which slows down rich countries' development. It means that affluent nations might potentially suffer from not giving adequate resources or subsidies, like vaccinations, food, clean water, or other indispensables, to those who are incapable to bounce back from catastrophe. This links to, for instance, widened poverty gap, due in large part to the human capital, landscapes, and manufacture facilities loss. The derived social, health, economic issues might be a corresponding burden for rich nations. If the rich ones immorally neglect these significant events, the Kumar will speak. They might eventually suffer more.
In conclusion, having examined the reasons in detail, well-developed nations, from my perspective, cannot neglect their responsibility for assisting the under-developed ones on the natural calamity. It is the moral duty of all who are more fortunate to help those who suffer.