Weddings are getting bigger and more expensive. What is the reason for this? Is it a positive or negative development?

Many today argue that limited

resources

such

as freshwater should be overseen by the

government

while others believe the opposite.

This

essay will discuss both views with arguments and examples. In my opinion, allowing the

government

to

control

such

scarce

resources

is a positive development. The significant positive upside of allowing the country to

control

the supply of freshwater is quality

control

. It's almost impossible for each individual to monitor and test the quality of the water.

Hence

why

government

intervention is necessary. Adding to

this

is the equal distribution. Under the assumption that the

government

is not corrupt and not chasing after personal benefits, individuals are able to receive a fair share of their supply. As an example,

governments

can create a subordinate division to

control

scarce

resources

like

fresh water

Correct your spelling

freshwater

show examples

.

Consequently

, equal distribution and quality

control

can be achieved more effectively.

On the other hand

, the drawback associated with allowing the

government

to intervene is the possibility of incompetence.

This

is because many

governments

are famously known for wasting time and

resources

that are not of interest to the public.

For instance

, they tend to prioritize unnecessary aspects that do not require immediate attention.

As a result

, by the time it takes for the concern to be resolved, the damage that's already been conflicted is irreversible.

Thus

, many members of the public are greatly concerned about the incompetence of

governments

. In conclusion,

although

there are significant benefits and drawbacks associated with allowing

governments

to oversee scarce

resources

such

as freshwater. I strongly believe that

such

a method is a positive development.