Correcties

The texts verse about the idea of ‘quality of life’, an everyday more widespread term.

Both texts agree on the fact that being healthy is key to claim that one has a good quality of life.

On the other hand, the additionally consider other contributive elements to the quality of life The first texts suggest that there is a broad variety of items included under the term of quality of life, and only few people will join them all.

On this matter, I believe that pursuing all the criteria of having a good quality of life may actually put you through a lot of struggles – finding an ideal job, meeting wonderful people, living in an environment that suits you… Although, on the whole, no one would dispute that if you achieve those purposes, the quality of life gained would make up for the sufferance and harshness to get there.

Additionally, this first text puts forward that while health is an item of quality of life in control of the individual, a lot other factors, such as those depending on nature and climate, are not.

This, however, is not always possible.

This texts also exposes a major concept, the existence of cities where life is supposed to be better, even I perfect harmony with all its elements so people live there happily.

Personally, I state that working commonly towards a better city is a direct path to transform the shame of belonging to a city into being proud of living in it and have participated in its improvement.

And, although some factors scape to our control, succeeding as this regard is also a matter of phycology.

This is to say, you will have a better quality of life if you are aware of what con can achieve and go for it, you will eventually settle in a comfortable lifestyle that will live to your realistic expectations.