Being good at math depends more on natural ability than on the quality of teaching they receive. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is believed by few individuals that how good someone can be in mathematics, to a great extent depends upon the inherent calibre of the candidate ;whereas, instructing ,or monitoring they acquire from an instructor is not necessary.

Although

, my outlook varies from others' perspectives and personally disagree with the former opinion. Even though, the majority of folk's thought process is like that only. To commence with, being good at calculus is directly proportional to how much practice one has;along with that, the amount of interest the person has in a particular subject

also

determines how efficient he can be in it.

For instance

, according to the latest thesis, most teens tend to incline towards learning algebra as compared to the former times. Because the importance and weightage given to math in competitive exams by the boards are said to be the reason for the increment.

Moreover

, it has got nothing to do with genes ,or one's inherited traits.

Furthermore

, that sort of perception should be changed and

also

deserved respect should be given to professional teachers as they are the one who makes children get to indulge in the subject.

For example

, there was a child who was decent in his studies.

However

, he had a great amount of interest in maths. Not much attention was paid to him by other teachers;while, the maths teacher taught him really well and

then

when the results were announced he stunned everyone as he was the topper in maths in the whole school.

In addition

to

this

, he gave credit where it was due(to his teacher). By way of conclusion, I strongly advocate that teaching provided by tutors is more significant rather than natural ability and the rightful credit should be given to the teachers as they are the ones who work hard with students.