本文为一篇议论小论文，在安乐死被社会中人议论纷纷的情况，对于它的对于错，是与非，本文作者发表了自己见解，提出了自己的看法，并对此进行阐述与分析。
 
A dying man lying in the bed is begging his relatives to stop his life. This scene in a movie remains in my brain for several years. There is a famous sentence from Seneca, a great Roman orator, “if I must suffer without hope or relief, I will depart, not through fear of the pain itself, but because it prevents all for which I would live.” Euthanasia is a cure rather than a poison, for it bringing life a peaceful ending.
 
Firstly, euthanasia embodies the respect to life. Some people believe that euthanasia violates the right of living. However, life is not equal to living. “If old age leaves me not life but breath, I will depart from the putrid or tottering edifice,” http://www.51lunwen.com/dxessay/ said Seneca. Life should be a condition of inner serenity and consciousness rather than a process of battling with uncured diseases with unbearable pain. As a result, when the ultimate end is as inevitable as it now appears to be, the individual should have the right to gain a peaceful ending.  
   
Secondly, euthanasia rescues not only the dying patients from pain, but also their relatives who are under serious mental and financial pressure. The opponents urge to stop the appliance of euthanasia to procrastinate death, when the dying patients who are suffering from unbearable pain may just feel the endless pain and torment. Francis Bacon used to say, “The duty of a doctor is not only to cure the patients, but also to ease their pain and sorrow.” On the other hand, the relatives of the dying patients are suffering both mental and financial pressure. With the obligation to take care of the patients, the relatives would be in a dilemma. Once euthanasia can be legalized, then the pain of both the patients and their relatives can be eased. 
 
Last but not least, euthanasia can save the rare resources to rescue those who are really in need. The resources for human beings are decreasing day by day. However, for those who are suffering a lot and facing the inevitable death, the appliance of medical resources can just postpone death but remain the pain. On the contrary, there are many other patients who can recover with the resources. With the resources left, a beautiful life can be rescued. 
 
In conclusion, euthanasia is a cure to dying people by relieving their pain, remaining their dignity, and fulfilling their valuation of life to rescue another life.  It’s a peaceful and valuable ending for dying people to accept euthanasia.
 
Outline:
1.Thesis: Euthanasia is a cure rather than a poison, for it bringing life a peaceful ending.
2.Three main points and supports：Firstly, euthanasia embodies the respect to life, which is supported by Seneca’s words. Secondly, euthanasia rescues not only the dying patients from pain, but also their relatives who are under serio


Sample of Argumentative Essay on Politics

Nanny State or Reasonable Regulation?
It is often said that there is no such a foolproof system that a complete fool wouldn’t be able to cut his head off. Our modern reality presupposes that 99% of people, who are not fools, should make everything possible in order to keep the remaining 1% safe, although this one percent will cut their head off, no matter how we guard them.

Throughout history the state tried to limit the freedom of its citizens, to dictate its will to the ones who live under its rule; democratic transformations seemed to change this situation, people for the first time in history became safe, at least partially. Yet, it seems that the majority doesn’t actually like freedom. When the world’s governments began gradually impose the prohibitions and laws limiting freedom, the majority supported them. When the government bans gambling, they thank it for saving them from vicious extorters who made them spend huge amounts of money. When it forbids selling alcohol to underaged people, they thank it for saving them from immoral businessmen who make drunkards of them, etc.

But from whom does the government actually guard them? Does anybody actually make somebody spend money on gambling, alcohol or anything else? No. In all these situations a person makes its own choice and, by all logic, only this person should be responsible for his or her actions. In reality, in order to protect one man from making a wrong decision, government limits the freedom of a hundred who are not going to do anything stupid.

The same goes for any sphere of human life. Smoking, spending money in any way, making investments – all of it is limited because somebody may harm themselves. The situation we are facing is widely known as the Nanny State – the state that, covering behind the doctrine of protecting its citizens, considers to have a right to make completely private decisions for people, because they may do something wrong and cause themselves harm.

In the course of several last decades we saw an increase of this tendency throughout the Western World, and it is alarming, for it is the spirit of daring, lack of fear for the consequences, initiative and inventiveness that made the West what it is. The state tries to eliminate any possibility of continuing this tradition. I think it has gone far beyond the reasonable regulation of human life.