LNAT for 2026 entry - could someone read my essay and give me feedback?

Should the government spend more on space exploration?
Space exploration is a scientifically developing phenominon that may allow us, as a society to further develop our knowledge of the atmosphere. The justifications for the government spending more money on space expeditions comes from the arguments that it may allow for crucial discovery that may alter human life, revolving around themes of climate change and preservation. Yet, it is my intention within this essay to assert that governments should not spend more on space exploration, as the benefit does not outweigh the cost. There are significantly better uses of money in the current economic situations. In the UK, there is a cost of living crisis, where energy costs have consistently gone up. The NHS is in debt and extremely underfunded. Additionally, there are continuous strikes in the UK due to underpaid workers. Considering these weaknesses, it is clear space exploration should not be a priority in the current socio-economic climate and therefore the government should not spend more money on funding space exploration. The attempts to recover from these problems only further highlight the flaws in funding a space exploration scheme.
One may argue that science is the linchpin of our society, and therefore, to solve societal issues, such as disease or climate change, we must think with solutions in mind. To find such solutions, we must fund scientific research, involving research by NASA, for example, which may involve space exploration. The claim that there is a lack of funding around space exploration subsequently means that juristictions have not been able to develop scientifically and research wider. For example, one could visit planets such as Jupiter and its moons and understand more about our atmosphere, which we have not been able to do in the capacity that would allow for vittally important scientific developments. However, this is a weak argument because it is simply more beneficial, in the current cost of living crisis to spend money to equate to tangible outcomes. Trump's "America First" policy epitomises how this is an idea rooted in popular sovereignty, due to his recent election victory. People, in society, politically, want their problems to be solved first, and then discoveries and developments. This is mirrored in the UK. People, in the polls are consistently voting for parties either promising to fund the NHS, lower taxes or simply make a specific groups life better. This reflects the societal and almost selfish need to put yourself first, over science. Additionally, the desire for lower taxes strengthens this argument as it implies people themselves want to keep their own money, and give a limited proportion to the government, of which they pay for basic necessities, such as maintainance and healthcare services. This is a strong argument against space exploration as space exploration is working on the basis for the potential for a scientific discovery. Yet, in the current economic climate, that is not people's prioirty. However, we can strongly respond to this, partially recoving. The argument that we should fund space further comes from the fact that space is so misunderstood and would allow us to think sharply and understand the real beginning of time, and perhaps, therefore make groundbreaking discoveries in physics, in maths and it seems almost obvious that we would make groundbreaking discoveries in astronomy. This is fundamental as our understanding of the universe underpins many other fields, from religious beliefs (which it may prove or disprove through experimentation and discovery) to philosophical beliefs, such as epistomology; it could answer questions like how did the universe begin? However, the fatal flaw to this is that it is the best hypothesis that the most benefit will come from funding healthcare, and as a result saving lives, opposed to the potential of scientific discovery. The lives saved in the UK, in my opinion should supercede the potential for a scientific discovery, mainly due to a utilitarian view of the world. Overall, it is clear that the stronger argument is that we should not fund space exploration as it is simply not a popular idea, and although it may lead to scientific deveklopments, benefitting many juristictions, in the current economic climate, defined mainly by widespread poverty and struggle, it is not an effective use of limited government money.
However, perhaps the government should spend money on funding space exploration, due to the societal benefit it may bring. However egregious the tangible costs of space exploration may be, there is no doubt as to the patriotism it brings. When we landed on the moon, there is no doubt societal morale boomed. Niel Armstrong's infamous quote exemplifies this with him positing, "one step for man, one leap for mankind" not only strengthens the previous discussion around scientific developments across juristictions, but also is regularly placed in discussions around the successes of the USA's politics and society. This assertion commonly provoked is due to the percieved development that coincides with space exploration. People feel like their government is making a difference on the future, and although less economically tangible, it is important to consider, in a utilitarian manner, the benefit that may be brought socially by funding further space exploration. However, this faces the fatal flaw that we are in a cost of living crisis and the government do not even have enough money to pay for a significant development in science. Perhaps we could visit the moon, but what furtehr scientific development would that make? To make signif
Although some people may argue space exploration has the potential for a benefit to mankind that is inconceivable, it is simply not a popular idea. The strongest argument for this is that people are politically swinging right and especially in the US, with Trump's claim of an "America First" foreign policy, people do not desire to explore space.

Should the government spend more on space exploration?
Space exploration is a scientifically developing phenominon that may allow us, as a society to further develop our knowledge of the atmosphere. The justifications for the government spending more money on space expeditions comes from the arguments that it may allow for crucial discovery that may alter human life, revolving around themes of climate change and preservation. Yet, it is my intention within this essay to assert that governments should not spend more on space exploration, as the benefit does not outweigh the cost. There are significantly better uses of money in the current economic situations. In the UK, there is a cost of living crisis, where energy costs have consistently gone up. The NHS is in debt and extremely underfunded. Additionally, there are continuous strikes in the UK due to underpaid workers. Considering these weaknesses, it is clear space exploration should not be a priority in the current socio-economic climate and therefore the government should not spend more money on funding space exploration. The attempts to recover from these problems only further highlight the flaws in funding a space exploration scheme.
One may argue that science is the linchpin of our society, and therefore, to solve societal issues, such as disease or climate change, we must think with solutions in mind. To find such solutions, we must fund scientific research, involving research by NASA, for example, which may involve space exploration. The claim that there is a lack of funding around space exploration subsequently means that juristictions have not been able to develop scientifically and research wider. For example, one could visit planets such as Jupiter and its moons and understand more about our atmosphere, which we have not been able to do in the capacity that would allow for vittally important scientific developments. However, this is a weak argument because it is simply more beneficial, in the current cost of living crisis to spend money to equate to tangible outcomes. Trump's "America First" policy epitomises how this is an idea rooted in popular sovereignty, due to his recent election victory. People, in society, politically, want their problems to be solved first, and then discoveries and developments. This is mirrored in the UK. People, in the polls are consistently voting for parties either promising to fund the NHS, lower taxes or simply make a specific groups life better. This reflects the societal and almost selfish need to put yourself first, over science. Additionally, the desire for lower taxes strengthens this argument as it implies people themselves want to keep their own money, and give a limited proportion to the government, of which they pay for basic necessities, such as maintainance and healthcare services. This is a strong argument against space exploration as space exploration is working on the basis for the potential for a scientific discovery. Yet, in the current economic climate, that is not people's prioirty. However, we can strongly respond to this, partially recoving. The argument that we should fund space further comes from the fact that space is so misunderstood and would allow us to think sharply and understand the real beginning of time, and perhaps, therefore make groundbreaking discoveries in physics, in maths and it seems almost obvious that we would make groundbreaking discoveries in astronomy. This is fundamental as our understanding of the universe underpins many other fields, from religious beliefs (which it may prove or disprove through experimentation and discovery) to philosophical beliefs, such as epistomology; it could answer questions like how did the universe begin? However, the fatal flaw to this is that it is the best hypothesis that the most benefit will come from funding healthcare, and as a result saving lives, opposed to the potential of scientific discovery. The lives saved in the UK, in my opinion should supercede the potential for a scientific discovery, mainly due to a utilitarian view of the world. Overall, it is clear that the stronger argument is that we should not fund space exploration as it is simply not a popular idea, and although it may lead to scientific deveklopments, benefitting many juristictions, in the current economic climate, defined mainly by widespread poverty and struggle, it is not an effective use of limited government money.
However, perhaps the government should spend money on funding space exploration, due to the societal benefit it may bring. However egregious the tangible costs of space exploration may be, there is no doubt as to the patriotism it brings. When we landed on the moon, there is no doubt societal morale boomed. Niel Armstrong's infamous quote exemplifies this with him positing, "one step for man, one leap for mankind" not only strengthens the previous discussion around scientific developments across juristictions, but also is regularly placed in discussions around the successes of the USA's politics and society. This assertion commonly provoked is due to the percieved development that coincides with space exploration. People feel like their government is making a difference on the future, and although less economically tangible, it is important to consider, in a utilitarian manner, the benefit that may be brought socially by funding further space exploration. However, this faces the fatal flaw that we are in a cost of living crisis and the government do not even have enough money to pay for a significant development in science. Perhaps we could visit the moon, but what furtehr scientific development would that make? To make signif
Although some people may argue space exploration has the potential for a benefit to mankind that is inconceivable, it is simply not a popular idea. The strongest argument for this is that people are politically swinging right and especially in the US, with Trump's claim of an "America First" foreign policy, people do not desire to explore space.