If is the best interest of the US government to cease funding the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA). The cost of a federal agency like NASA a gargantuan, and the returns on the investment are limited. Funding could be better allocated to dealing with pressing social problems, such as homelessness and poverty. Develop a response to the claim in which you discuss whether or not agree with it. Focus especially on the most powerful or compelling examples that could be used to refute your position.
Request for full review. Look for overall idea, sentence structure, punctuation. Do I add any more details. Is there any contradictory ideas or statements ??
Beyond doubt, the issue to homelessness and poverty are important and should be taken with utmost importance. However, personally, I disagree with the assertion that decrease in funding of NASA and concentrating more on issues like homelessness and poverty, would be the best interest to the government. This opinion is based on the ideas such as innovation by NASA; supporting young innovator in their research; and providing job to a large number and supporting poor.
First, NASA has implemented a number of innovative ideas which has created good business that cannot be overlooked. During 19th century NASA was the first organization in the world to send a manned spacecraft to moon. Even though, one might question the importance of sending spacecraft to moon compared to the benefits from poverty and other important issues, it might be shortsightedness to dismiss the benefits this program has given for the years. Currently, NASA is earning 3 billion dollars business just by helping other nations prepare for the manned spacecraft to moon. This brings foreign currency in US which in turn does benefit the nation. To add, NASA is indirectly supporting poverty by creating job. Hence, dismissing the benefits of NASA would affect the nation financially and also in fighting poverty and joblessness.
In addition to innovative ideas, NASA has supported young research fellows to conduct experiment in space, who have given solution for difficult problems. It is a dream come true for the researchers who get a chance to work in NASA as this will boost their practical knowledge in space. This research conducted by young genius has developed outstanding ideas like medicines to fight cancer and HVI. Not supporting will decrease these research programs which would also force these research people to choose a different field of study. Thus, this would lead to fewer innovators and would also leave the unsolved problems in the world.
Finally, alongside the issue of innovation and young innovators, NASA has employed two lakhs people and benefited many by financial support. Apart from taking NASA as a funding sink, we must also look into the other side where NASA has created job and is home for a number of people. Also, every year NASA is one of the biggest recruiters from engineering and medical schools. Not just that, NASA has even started programs by sponsoring students at a very young age to get involved with their areas of interest, thereby giving poor a chance to study. Thus, the idea of negating funds given to NASA as a bad return on investment would not have looked into the others areas like financial support given by NASA.
My consideration of the issue of decrease in funding NASA has explored factors such as innovation, a place for innovators, and employment and financial support. These considerations led me to disagree with the blanket statement that decrease in funding NASA would be beneficial to the government. I do agree that poverty and homelessness are very important issues but decrease in funds to an organization like NASA should not be a solution to the other problems.
Request for full review. Look for overall idea, sentence structure, punctuation. Do I add any more details. Is there any contradictory ideas or statements ??
funding the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA)
Beyond doubt, the issue to homelessness and poverty are important and should be taken with utmost importance. However, personally, I disagree with the assertion that decrease in funding of NASA and concentrating more on issues like homelessness and poverty, would be the best interest to the government. This opinion is based on the ideas such as innovation by NASA; supporting young innovator in their research; and providing job to a large number and supporting poor.
First, NASA has implemented a number of innovative ideas which has created good business that cannot be overlooked. During 19th century NASA was the first organization in the world to send a manned spacecraft to moon. Even though, one might question the importance of sending spacecraft to moon compared to the benefits from poverty and other important issues, it might be shortsightedness to dismiss the benefits this program has given for the years. Currently, NASA is earning 3 billion dollars business just by helping other nations prepare for the manned spacecraft to moon. This brings foreign currency in US which in turn does benefit the nation. To add, NASA is indirectly supporting poverty by creating job. Hence, dismissing the benefits of NASA would affect the nation financially and also in fighting poverty and joblessness.
In addition to innovative ideas, NASA has supported young research fellows to conduct experiment in space, who have given solution for difficult problems. It is a dream come true for the researchers who get a chance to work in NASA as this will boost their practical knowledge in space. This research conducted by young genius has developed outstanding ideas like medicines to fight cancer and HVI. Not supporting will decrease these research programs which would also force these research people to choose a different field of study. Thus, this would lead to fewer innovators and would also leave the unsolved problems in the world.
Finally, alongside the issue of innovation and young innovators, NASA has employed two lakhs people and benefited many by financial support. Apart from taking NASA as a funding sink, we must also look into the other side where NASA has created job and is home for a number of people. Also, every year NASA is one of the biggest recruiters from engineering and medical schools. Not just that, NASA has even started programs by sponsoring students at a very young age to get involved with their areas of interest, thereby giving poor a chance to study. Thus, the idea of negating funds given to NASA as a bad return on investment would not have looked into the others areas like financial support given by NASA.
My consideration of the issue of decrease in funding NASA has explored factors such as innovation, a place for innovators, and employment and financial support. These considerations led me to disagree with the blanket statement that decrease in funding NASA would be beneficial to the government. I do agree that poverty and homelessness are very important issues but decrease in funds to an organization like NASA should not be a solution to the other problems.
Do You Need