Both government and individuals are spending vast amounts of money protecting animals and their habitats. This money could be better spent dealing with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care. To what extent do you agree?

There has always been a controversy regarding whether or not too much money is spent on protecting animals. Many people argue that

this

Linking Words

should be a priority

while

Linking Words

many others hold opposing views. As far as I am concerned, I strongly disagree with the statement that protecting wildlife creatures is the main priority. First of all, the government should focus on improving societal issues

such

Linking Words

as high poverty and unemployment. They could do

this

Linking Words

by providing unemployment benefits

while

Linking Words

workers look for a job. With

this

Linking Words

, they would have enough money to afford their basic necessities and would have a lower risk of being in poverty.

Moreover

Linking Words

, if they spend on improving the healthcare of the country, the death rate would be reduced. More people will

also

Linking Words

be fit to work, leading to more output.

This

Linking Words

would contribute to economic growth and allow the country to be in a better economic position. In conclusion, more money should be spent on dealing with fundamental issues in the economy rather than preserving animals and their habitats.

Although

Linking Words

preserving them is important to prevent them from being extinct, focusing on the economy and its state is even more fundamental. If people are in a bad state, they may harm the environment by deforestation, which would destroy animal habitats or butcher animals to illegally sell.