Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.Write a response in which you discuss

Preserving cultural tradition costs a lot and residents tend to use the money to build up convenience infrastructures, therefore, there are various opinions regarding this topic. Some visionaries, including the speaker, claim that governments should provide financial support to major cities in order to thrive their traditions whereas others argue that governments don’t have to use the money for cities’ traditions because some cities are not interested in improving a nation’s cultural traditions. Admittedly, both opinions are equally important. As far as I see it, I agree with the speaker’s statement that countries should provide enough fund to major cities to support their cultures because cities can have an opportunity to think about their identity of the city. However, it is erroneous to conclude that cities should receive money from the government to improve their traditions without considering disadvantages of the statement, and I, therefore, discuss and provide evidence supporting the speaker’s statement is more crucial in the following analysis.

To begin with, one logical explanation for my fundamental agreement is that people, nowadays, need the opportunity to think about unique traditions for their country because many countries tend to become identical. For example, people cannot distinguish a big part of the difference with a small city in the Japan and Korea, because they are both trying to generate new technology and forget old fascinated cultures which youngster believes not cool stuff. However, if there is a fund from governments, and if we have to use the money for preserving our culture, citizens have to think about what their city’s traditions were. Thus, I believe that we should not waste our cultural differences, so to make original characteristics of the country, I believe the government’s support in preserving traditions are useful.

Furthermore, if the country remember their traditional cultures and it attracts others, I believe the number of visitors in the country must increase, thus, the nation can earn more money. Suppose, for example, that my prefecture in Japan preserves a lot of cultural sites, such as cleaning forgotten temple and shrine, and make a museum. If this culture attracts other country’s people, they might come to my prefecture and use the money for an entrance fee and staying fee, so my city can receive money from new visitors, and then, this money will finally back to the nation’s fund. Therefore, I believe that government’s money will increase the nation’s profit, so I think the speaker’s claim is profitable.

Even with all reasons, however, it would be too perfunctory to sum up that the government’s fund for a city is useful since there is no denying that the disadvantages of the claim. Admittedly, using the money for preserving culture costs a lot, and governments are not sure whether we can succeed in cultural preserving, so some might contend that the idea is a waste of money. However, this argument overlooks the fact that if people stop to use the money to preserve culture, our next generations will forget culture, hence, they might speak the same language, wear identical clothes, and eat same foods. Many people today want to have a different culture and enjoy going to other places to learn traditions, therefore, I emphasize that a government’s fund is useful.

Consequently, I advocated that a government’s support for cities to preserve culture is valuable. While using fund a lot is waste of money if the preserving does not succeed in, I agree that the claimer’s opinion because we can earn extra money and remember the importance of culture, and I, therefore, insist that the country should provide money to preserve and generate city’s culture.