The government should spend money in promoting sport and art in school, rather than sponsoring professional sport and art events in communities. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that authorities ought to put finance into reinforcing physical exercise and art on campus

instead

of investing in these two types of occupational activities in society. Personally, I partly disagree with

this

statement, and the following essay will examine the reasons for

this

tendency. On the one hand, educational institutes are not only for teaching academic knowledge but

also

for cultivating learners' creativities and health. Art lessons,

for example

, cost the government to foster students drawing or sculpture skills in schools where there is to discover every children's potential talent.

In addition

to that, physical education is vital to citizens' well-being, which is worth spending money on it. Once adolescents take a badminton course each week, it would strengthen their concentration, reduce mental problems

such

as anxiety disorder resulting from stressful coursework, and stay away from obesity.

However

, there is

also

essential to sponsor athletes and artists in their careers. The front and centre cause is that after a good education, they are valuable to have a field to develop their profession. Holding galleries and exhibitions,

for instance

, to attract the population for visiting and charging entry fees is an effective approach to showing their talents.

Moreover

, another example would be if offering athletes advanced types of equipment and nurturing them to be national teams, it is accessible making them participate in global sports competitions. In conclusion, the political authority is obligated to spend funds to improve people's education in art and sports,

whereas

I would argue that it is equally crucial to support their career development.