Some people think that the government should invest more money in teaching science than other subjects to make progress. Do you agree or disagree?

Although

, many experts believe that for the development of a nation, an authority should spend more money to educate

science

rather than other courses. I think in a reverse manner and quarrel with the given statement. My inclination is justified in the following paragraphs. Out of all the arguments, the foremost one to prove my opinion is, other subjects are

also

very important in the country’s development. It cannot be denied that for a country to develop all possible subjects are equally important in their unique way.

For example

, accounts, management, history, languages, geography, statistics, and sports too play a crucial role to develop any country.

This

all together builds the strong economy of the particular province. Another reason to prove my point is that other studies can help to backup

science

.

For instance

, language is important for the explanation of the concept, history is used to explain how technology advanced over time.

Moreover

, all people do not incline

science

because that can lead to unemployment and discontent amongst people.

On the contrary

, some people believe that

science

should get more funding from central authorities. They

also

believe that

science

is an epicentre of the progress of the nation.

That is

to say, developed countries like the United States have gain momentum mostly by funding a large number of

science

subjects. They spend money to make world-class labs in many schools. To conclude, it can be said that

although

science

is the centre of the process and development of a country, it would be impractical and illogical for the government to invest more only in

this

topic. My reason proves the importance of the subject too.