Governments play an important role in enhancing the welfare of the general public. Whether governments should spend more money in support of the arts than in support of athletics can be weighed in many aspects. In my opinion, I do not concur with the statement that governments should invest more money in arts.
Admittedly, some people will argue that arts are an essential element for people’s mental health. For example, in a competitive and heavy-stress society, watching an art exhibition or creating various art forms can help people release the pressure. However, the arts can only give people a channel to relax their inner side. For comprehensive development, sport is a better option for governments to focus on.
First of all, the government’s support to athletics can provide people a thorough training and rich resource. For example, many famous athletes started their careers from a very young age, which means the school is a place to incubate those extraordinary people. The government should invest its budget in the athletics program. It can bring not only the plenitude resource and equipment for athletes’ training but also help students establish their mental and physical development. Since in the competitive environment, people tend to spend a long time on study or work and lack of adequate exercise. Therefore, the support of the athletics program in school can create benefits for students and potential players.
On the other hand, if the government spends money on sponsoring a state Olympic team, it can bring many advantages to residents. For example, when a state-sponsored team wins a championship in races and presents impressive performance, those sports players can promote the fame and status of the state. Subsequently, those parents who wish their children develop a sports career will move into the state. Moreover, prominent sports brands will invest and open more stores in the state to sell their products. Not only the economic growth will be indebted to the consequence of the government’s investment, but also sports will become prevalent in the state. Consequently, the employee rate will rise and people in the state will live healthier.
To sum up, the statement is not as persuasive as it stands. Based on my expositions mentioned above, I support the viewpoint that the government should spend more money to support the development of athletics because it can facilitate people to stay healthy and create potential economic growth simultaneously. Therefore, governments should not spend more money in support of the arts.
Governments
play an
important
role in enhancing the welfare of the
general public
.
Whether
governments
should
spend
more
money
in
support
of the
arts
than in
support
of athletics can
be weighed
in
many
aspects. In my opinion, I do not concur with the statement that
governments
should invest more
money
in arts.
Admittedly
,
some
people
will argue that
arts
are an essential element for
people’s
mental health.
For example
, in a competitive and heavy-
stress
society, watching an
art
exhibition or creating various
art
forms can
help
people
release the pressure.
However
, the
arts
can
only
give
people
a channel to relax their inner side. For comprehensive development,
sport
is a better option for
governments
to focus on.
First of all
, the
government’s
support
to athletics can provide
people
a thorough training and rich resource.
For example
,
many
famous
athletes
started
their careers from a
very
young age, which means the school is a place to incubate those extraordinary
people
. The
government
should invest its budget in the athletics program. It can bring not
only
the plenitude resource and equipment for athletes’ training
but
also
help
students establish their mental and physical development. Since in the competitive environment,
people
tend to
spend
a long time on study or work and lack of adequate exercise.
Therefore
, the
support
of the athletics program in school can create benefits for students and potential players.
On the other hand
, if the
government
spends
money
on sponsoring a
state
Olympic team, it can bring
many
advantages to residents.
For example
, when a state-sponsored team wins a championship in races and presents impressive performance, those
sports
players can promote the fame and status of the
state
.
Subsequently
, those parents who wish their children develop a
sports
career will
move
into the
state
.
Moreover
, prominent
sports
brands will invest and open more stores in the
state
to sell their products. Not
only
the economic growth will
be indebted
to the consequence of the
government’s
investment,
but
also
sports
will become prevalent in the
state
.
Consequently
, the employee rate will rise and
people
in the
state
will
live
healthier.
To sum up, the statement is not as persuasive as it stands. Based on my expositions mentioned above, I
support
the viewpoint that the
government
should
spend
more
money
to
support
the development of athletics
because
it can facilitate
people
to stay healthy and create potential economic growth
simultaneously
.
Therefore
,
governments
should not
spend
more
money
in
support
of the
arts
.