Write an argumentative essay for or against using public money to maintain national landmarks, such as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. Actually, this is a free essay for this prompt on Edge. Get a good, easy grade!

Will we use public money to preserve national landmarks? Or maybe we shouldn't. I believe we really should. They can be seen as landmarks for navigation, something to see for vacations, and because national landmarks have a lot of significance and sense behind them. So let's dig more into why we should.

First, let's look at the Washington Monument. It was designed to honor George Washington, the former commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War, and the first president of the United States. We should use public money to protect this landmark, and it's good to respect what George Washington has done. So other national monuments are made to honor others for their amazing works and good deeds.

Next, we should use public money to preserve these landmarks, because they all have importance to them. They should honor people who have sacrificed their lives for something or made a lot of sacrifices. The Lincoln Memorial, for example. In the 1860s, he helped free all the slaves. That is genuinely noble, so we should maintain the memorial to show respect for him.

Last but not least, the monuments could tell you where you are and they could even be a game! For instance, if you see a rather large landmark, like the Statue of Liberty, you'll certainly know that you're near NY. And if you can identify other national landmarks, you can keep track of where you are. And you can see images of various landmarks, and guess where they are.

There are good reasons to use public money to keep these national landmarks in good condition. Some of these landmarks are to honor people who deserve to be honored. They have sentimental value and meaning. Some can also even be used for navigation or even a guessing game. Would you want a national monument built for you?