It is often said that governments spend too much money on projects to protect wildlife, while there are other other problems that are more important. Do you agree or disagree?

There is a growing concern in these years that

although

there are many vital issues, executives fund more

money

for protecting

wildlife

. I completely agree with

this

idea that the public

money

of a city should be concentrated on other important projects. Quite a few reasons could be noted that

this

position is right. The

first

reason to support it is that by spending less

money

for protecting

wildlife

, the

government

can save more

money

and administrations can spend

this

money

on other projects,

such

as public facilities and medical care which are more likely to bring immediate benefits to the public, rather than the protecting

wildlife

. I think that public facilities, widely accepted as one of the main precursors to a city's development, should be one of the highest priorities. By boosting spending on public facilities, cities are more capable to satisfy the needs of citizens, and

improve

Wrong verb form

improving

show examples

their standard of living is a perfect example of

this

situation.

On the other hand

, it is

therefore

clear that the development of

education

should be given the foremost consideration. In my opinion,

education

is essential to the economic and social well-being of a country, particularly of an underdeveloped country. Unlike protecting

wildlife

,

education

requires more

money

to survive but

also

government

can earn more

money

from

education

.

For example

, it is undeniable that well

education

leads to well-educated staff and

also

it is true to say that these workers bring more benefits for

government

and society. In conclusion, I fully support the view that

government

should concrete more essential problems rather than projects to protect

wildlife

.