Can the following article be used to prove that the government uses money for its own purposes and does not provide enough support for areas that have real needs?
It would be very difficult for you to use this article to prove or support this point. The article is simply a factual article about what happened with very little to help you understand why it happened. It also does not tell us enough facts to really allow us to infer very much.
A few problems with it include:
- It has very few quotes about why the riots happened. We know that it was because of the new policy, but there's only one quote from a rioter and he talked about destroying the whole system of government. There are not even any quotes from academics saying "here's why these riots happened."
- It does not tell us who is truly affected by the new policy. Are there many poor people who had been going to college at a low cost and will not be able to afford the price increase? Or are the people who are affected a bunch of middle class students who just didn't want to pay more?
- It doesn't tell us who was there rioting or protesting. If they were all people from areas with "real needs" maybe we could use this to prove your point. But we don't know who they were.
- Finally, this article has nothing in it to prove your point about what the government uses its money for. We know that higher education will cost more, but what is the government going to do with the money it gets? Is it going to put more towards the expense accounts of the MPs (as in the recent scandals) or it is going to use the money saved to improve the National Health Service? The answer to this matters immensely in terms of whether the fee increases help prove your thesis.
Overall, then, this is not a good article for proving the point you are trying to argue.