Rich countries often give money to poorer countries, but it does not solve poverty. Therefore, developed countries should give other types of help to the poor countries rather than financial aid. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Usually, rich people give who needed what the government do.

This

habit is essential since the ancient centuries, the poorer soil receives all types of assistance from developed land. In my opinion, I see financial help and other things of help as the same priority as vital as them

on the contrary

I prefer the second type of help and I will justify that in the following paragraphs.

Firstly

and foremost, financial aid or money may be a temporary solution but

nevertheless

never solve it from the root. In another word, the money offered by first-world countries will face two choices

first,

may have been taken from a bad government they stole it and put the check in their personal account ,

along with

that the useless in the incorrect ways. Yemen, Palestine and Syria are clear examples.

Therefore

, the non-financial has numerous advantages.

In particular

,the side of people every country has special needs

consequently

when they receive the real thing which is needed the two countries will take the benefits.

For instance

, medicines, food, teachers and clothes are good examples.

Moreover

, the material relief loses fascination .

As a result

,keep it safe from thieves during the whole journey until reaches the right hands. The duo, nobody useful from things

such

as simple clothes or food except those who can not available for themselves.

To conclude

, how the presentation of cash is a critical factor to help the poorer but at the same

time

Add a comma

,time

show examples

the material supports outweigh plenty of resonances.