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".

answer: you

explanation: because you posted this stupid question xd

the students want to see the great sphinx of giza, which is very popular with tourists.