When classmates or colleagues communicate about a project in person instead of by e-mail, they will produce better work for the project.
Since, nowadays, the desires for progression and tranquility of the societies are at the top of the rank of governments’ priorities list, they turn all their efforts into putting such goals into action, causing them to gain public satisfaction. Nonetheless, the disputable issue on which officials have yet to achieve a collective consensus is whether allocating the public budget to improve arts is more important than supporting the athletic breeding grounds. Personally speaking, my viewpoint is in line with those whose notions are that the governments should spend more money supporting athletics. This claim will be justified in the following essay. First and foremost, since the revenue generated by artists is nowhere close to the income created by athletes, it is better to allocate the national budget to improve the athletic equipment such as setting a better stage for state-sponsored Olympic teams. This is to say, the revenue acquired by athletes is so significant that not only can the governments spend more money on improving the prosperity of the public’s lives, but they can also allocate a vast part of it to support of arts. Expressing a compelling example can help to a profound understanding of this concept. For example, one of the advanced societies dedicated- if not all-the most part of its budget to providing the breeding grounds for youngers in order to nurture their talents in the sport. Consequently, the well-developed equipment created by the government led to either the public entertainment or nurturing of the youngers’ gifts the latter caused find some professional athletes. Hence, the youngers turned into professional athletes generated a considerable amount of revenue through their participation and winning the gold trophy and medals. Another reason worth mentioning is that since the public’s physical health has a direct link to the health of societies, both psychological and ethical, the way of investing the national budget made by the governments should be a well-deserved decision, leading them to create a well-off and prosperous life for the public. In other words, the physical health of the public participating in gyms and other clubs leads to not only creating the cutting-edge technology but also promoting the culture. for instance, in one of the third-world countries, suffering from a high rate of crime and whose people are generally illiterate, the authorities decided to spend more money in support of arts in order to promote their enriched cultural aspects to the rest of the world. As a result, since the most part of its public was so illiterate that they neither desired to participate in concerts, galleries, etc nor spend money to purchase the relic of the well-known musicians, the government could not either earn any adequate revenue in order to justify their decision or live up to their expectations so that, it can be said, the decision made by the government’s officials was nothing short of a disaster. So, it is not wrong to say that had the government decided to invest the national budget in support of athletes, instead of allocating it to improving arts, it would have been possible for them to fulfill their dream goals, both increasing the public life expectancy and decreasing the high rate of crime in the country. In conclusion, according to the reasons mentioned above, I am of the notion that since the benefits of improving the athletic equipment, for both public and governors themselves, are much higher than those of supporting the arts, it will be better if the officials decide to spend more money on improving the athletic facilities.
Submitted by Vahid on