some people believe that it is best to accept a bad situation, such as an unsatisfactory job or shortage of money. others argue that it is better to try and improve such situations. discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

It is held by certain populations that we shouldn't raise our voice against negative conditions like work-related or financial issues while others claim that we need to struggle to convert the negativeness into a better position.

Although

both of these approaches have their points,

however

,

this

essay agrees that fighting for a better situation is much more suitable.

First

of all, many persons believe that no struggle can alter the abject conditions. The main reason for

this

is the belief that a lack of capital will not let them reach their goal. Without an adequate resource, humankind is not able to even make the basic initiatives.

For example

, to sell jewellery, one needs to have enough money to start and maintain his business. In short, their disadvantageous position, in terms of wealth, doesn't allow them to form a union to change a forthcoming situation. On the other side, there are people who believe that altering the negative circumstances are not confined to money. Coordination between restless groups will eventually produce success. There are many examples in history that indicate the poor stratum of the society achieved vast revolutions.

For example

, the American defeat in Vietnam War constitutes the main story that rich man lost the war against the poor people who cemented ties between each other. In brief, relying on the valuable tangible entities does not end up with a victory,

on the contrary

, trusting each member of the society paves the way for success. In conclusion, some argue that changing bad conditions is a futile attempt because of the scant resources while others defend the contrasting belief that claims capital is not a must. Many historical pieces of evidence prove that fighting against unwanted issues doesn't always rely on capital.