Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion.
Recently, the issue of entrance fees has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that overseas visitors should be charged more for admission to tourist attractions, while others argue otherwise. Personally, I believe that both arguments should be given equal weight. In the following essay, the evidence supporting this contention will be discussed alongside relevant examples.
On the one hand, it seems difficult to refute the idea that imposing more entry charges on foreign travellers should be encouraged. Perhaps the most compelling reason is that if locals spend the same amount of money on tourist facilities, the majority of them consider it to be unfair. This is partly because a heavy tax burden has been placed on local residents in a bid to maintain these facilities. Another convincing reason is that an astronomical amount of money is allocated to produce materials only for foreigners, such as translated handbooks and audio services. To exemplify, an article released by Paris Times illustrates that the Louvre dedicates approximately 15% of its revenue to translation services for overseas visitors per year.
On the other hand, it seems short-sighted to contend that the local government should oblige foreigners to make use of more money in order to visit tourist amenities. The most oft-cited argument against such a view is that the number of overseas visitors is more likely to decrease if the country forces overseas tourists to devote more money to entering tourist sites, which exerts a negative influence on the quality of locals' living given that tourist spending can stimulate economic growth. Moreover, the same entrance fees make it possible for the nation to have a chance not only to promote its cultural heritage across the globe. In light of the above, I also find these persuasive.
In conclusion, it is undeniable that there are a variety of opinions about this topic. However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of the debate has its strengths, as discussed above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-04-02 | quang1944 | 73 | view |
| 2022-08-27 | Cggcgfhjghfj | 78 | view |
| 2022-08-27 | Cggcgfhjghfj | 61 | view |
| 2022-07-19 | qaengx12 | 73 | view |
| 2022-03-25 | HaleyLin2000 | 78 | view |
- Q13 The spread of multinational companies and the increase of globalisation produces positive effects for everyone To what extent do you agree or disagree 11
- Q3 Living in a country where you have to speak a foreign language can cause serious social problems as well as practical problems To what extend do you agree with this statement 84
- Q9 A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs including uses for food and research Wh 84
- Q3 Human activities have negative effects on plant and animal species Some Human activities have negative effects on plant and animal species Some people think it is too late to do anything about this problem Others believe that effective measures can be 89
- Q5 In a number of countries some people think it is necessary to spend large sums of money on constructing new railway lines for very fast trains between cities Others believe that the money should be spent on improving existing public transport Discuss b 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 127, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
... However, after considering this matter in a careful manner, it can be concluded that each side of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, so, while, as to, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 13.1623246493 114% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 7.85571142285 89% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 10.4138276553 10% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 41.998997996 114% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 8.3376753507 96% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1744.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 335.0 315.596192385 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20597014925 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7715513693 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.591044776119 0.561755894193 105% => OK
syllable_count: 564.3 506.74238477 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.76152304609 147% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.6292796276 49.4020404114 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.266666667 106.682146367 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3333333333 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86666666667 7.06120827912 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.67935871743 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 3.4128256513 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.191177339138 0.244688304435 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569698098839 0.084324248473 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402708355572 0.0667982634062 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109407080669 0.151304729494 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0255378800013 0.056905535591 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.63 8.58950901804 112% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 78.4519038076 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.