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

In

this

fast-paced modern world, a lot of authorities are thinking to give preference to their desired subject.

Although

traditional sects are preferring science approaches, the dominance of arts and technical spheres can not be overlooked. In

this

frame of reference, I am strongly disagree with the statement and considering it less practical and irrational. The

first

perspective which pushes me to stay firm with my notion is the less contribution of science subjects to the country's economy. As a matter of fact, science is only contributing 10% of money generation the other 90% of revenue comes from other arts and technical fields. In

this

contemporary epoch, computer and IT are the most demanding and appealing ways of raising the country's revenue. Take an instance of, France which is particularly famous for its art subjects

such

as history and psychology, and

also

becomes one of the leading economies in the world eventually. Another aspect is the element of a confined and limited approach. To illustrate it, if one nation merely relies on a particular aspect and considers it most essential for development, resultingly, the other fields will go down and their streak of progress will fluctuate.

Furthermore

, that nation can't make a balance between the people of all spheres of life. To conclude, my ideas in favour of a balanced approach are subjectively valid and practical to raising income,

instead

of blindly or conventionally advocating scientific spheres, there should be work on other facets of life, as well as one's should think about the contemporary world's new dimensions and its requirements to trigger economy.