Too much attention is given to headline-grabbing disasters like earthquakes and floods. Government should concentrate their resources on educating people about the risk they face nearer to home, which can cost far more lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.

Today, media coverage commonly dwells on large-scale disasters,

such

as earthquakes and floods that have cost plenty of expenditure.

Hence

, the officials supposedly allocate their funding to foster inhabitants' intellect to tackle local issues rather than mull over the problem.

In addition

, considering the topic, I strongly agree with

this

opinion, as prioritizing local

risks

could save more lives in the long run.

To begin

with, the frequency and impact on society have led to a paradigm shift towards local issues that are prone to come about.

For instance

, road accidents and chronic illnesses,

such

as cancer and diabetes are leading causes of death in numerous nations, which exceed the detrimental effects of natural disasters.

Consequently

, educating people with appropriate schooling as a viable solution is inevitably able to mitigate a simple problem, case in point, safer driving habits, and healthier lifestyles.

Furthermore

, in terms of financial spending, paying more attention to local

risks

is

also

more cost-effective. In fact, it is noticeable that the government has already contributed a huge amount of money to head off the natural challenge, which is unpredictable.

However

, life merit will be grasped if the funding is allocated and addressed to educate people about local

risks

.

For instance

, facilitating learning of promoting healthier eating habits for run-of-the-mill people is a down-to-earth approach to reducing health

risks

, which is more costly.

To sum up

,

this

is clear that the nation must provide an adequate resource taking into account the number of local accidents in society and the price is not significantly beyond what the community comfortably meets.