The government should invest more money in teaching science than in other subjects for a country’s development and progress. To what extent do you agree or disagree

There is a heated argument for saying that

science

should be a priority in national education to promote country evolution.

However

,

this

essay disapproves of

this

conviction, and opine that different methods are

also

highly relevant to internal growth. The following paragraphs will explain the reason for both sides of the view. On the one hand, there is no doubt that

science

should be a priority because it provides a better life condition in a global society. To explain, in modern times, men have based their supremacy between hominids by creating multiple

artifacts

Change the spelling

artefacts

show examples

across time. As well as, the creation of transportations, buildings, and medicines. All of

this

, produced using

science

applied to improve human conditions and the wealth of countries. To illustrate, take Korea as an example, their strategy is to use sciences to create technology to ease people's task, and

also

to distribute it in the global market to get profit.

On the other hand

,

however

, is important to balance the progress with another discipline.

That is

to say, not only using

science

means prosperity, several strategists should be considered to use in nations,

such

as teaching trade, languages, politics, and law. Owing to the fact that, success is no only one factor, success is a perfect mix of various mechanics that provide stability. To exemplify, research by the University of Colorado inform sovereign state with great handling of education in policy, multiculturalism, economy, social equality grows faster than tech countries. In conclusion, it is clear that

science

should be a target, and must be implemented for future progress.

Although

, the administration needs to highlight other considerations like those already mentioned above.