Write an argumentative essay for or against using public money to maintain national landmarks, such as the gateway Arch in St. Louis. i need the conclusion please

A conclusion that is in favour:

"Using public money to maintain national landmarks is a good policy in the sense that a national landmark is a public good: no one can be excluded from enjoying the view of a national landmark like the Arch in St. Louis for example.

Because they are public goods, national landmarks are not likely to be profitable or provided by the private sector in a free market, and for this reason, government intervention in the form of public money becomes necessary".

you didn't provide the passage.

explanation:

seeing as this is your first question on i can see why you may have not known that you need to provide the passage.

without the passage, or even the name of the passage, we can not read the passage, therefore we can not determine when or how the pacing effects the tone.

however, you can either repost this question (providing the passage this time)

or you can comment below what the passage is, and i'll you to the best of my ability!

caminas makes the most sense here since it means to walk.