Reading..., two approaches may sound reasonable: jail terms and rehabilitation programs. I believe that rehabilitation programs are more practical and effective when... It is true that some rehabilitation programs such as educating and training the wrongdoers are able to help them to be better citizens. Specifically, due to the lack of abilities of making a living, offenders may do something wrong or even break the laws again in order to survive, such as theft or robbery, and that seems to be the main reason why most people commit crimes. By receiving professional education or vocational training, lawbreakers are capable of learning personal skills or specific job skills, which enable them to gain a job with steady incomes, therefore reducing the possibility of re-offending. In addition, education and training have no effect on their work or study in the future, because imprisonment tends to be a criminal record. If rehabilitated prisoners have the chance to enter a promising company or receive higher education but are rejected just because they used to be a criminal. It is harmful to the distribution of human resources in society. As a result, education and job training not only prepare offenders for career opportunities but also enable them to be more responsible members of society. However, as a form of punishment, imprisonment is an essential punishment. It reduces the crime rate to a large extent owing to deterrence. Due to the fear of penalty, people are more likely to stop offences or recidivism. Moreover, through Jailing Criminals who are recidivists or doing grave crimes like murder, terrorism or rape, victims or witnesses are safe and avoid suffering revenge. Also, it makes sure hardcore criminals cannot pose a threat to other citizens. For these reasons, I think that providing education or training to them is an effective method than imprisonment in dealing with wrongdoers committing minor crimes. But regarding serious criminals, they must be jailed.

✔ Promoting healthy lifestyle and providing treatment, which is more important? They are both important. Admittedly, spending public money promoting a healthy lifestyle is imperative. Researches worldwide have consistently shown that there is a strong correlation between prevalent of certain disease and an unhealthy lifestyle. For instance, lack of physical exercise and eating fast food regularly might lead to obesity which contributes to a range of cardiovascular disease. Smoking and drinking directly cause countless disease, and obviously in that list, the most scary and painful one must be Cancer. When governments invest more in promoting a healthy lifestyle, Such as launching awareness-raising campaigns through TV or advertisement, paying celebrities to give public speeches and building more sport facilities, ordinary citizens will become better informed the link between health and lifestyle choices and the result of this is likely to general decline the risk of contracting Said diseases.   However, providing treatment for those who are already sick is equally important. Many diseases are inherited by faulty genes, or simply have something to do with environmental pollutions or ageing and have nothing to do with lifestyle. In other words, people who have these conditions have done absolutely nothing wrong, meaning that they deserve the government-subsided treatment at public or private medical institutions. Patients whose diseases are caused by an unhealthy lifestyle are also need to be cured, because it is unethical to deny their desperately needs when they suffering. Also, allocating public money to treating those patients is possible to develop some new therapies to relieve their pain. In that case, patients with mild diseases are easier to be cured and some serious and incurable diseases may have the chance to be cured compared with the past, such as polio. Such advantages are shared for people all over the world.

Thanks a lot for pointing out the mistake I made.❤ l Do you think artists with talents should focus on their talents? I think they would better to do it, but I am not saying that they must focus on it. For some artists, they might be interested more in other things that are not related to their talents, or even they may don’t like their talents. For example, an artist with a gift of painting force himself to painting all the time, without considering about interest. He/she may end up don’t like painting anymore. If an artist who prefer to physics force himself to painting all the time just because he is talent in art. It's likely to loss a excellent physicist in the world. Also, His/her potential talents of other fields might not be detected.

20160921✍