It is true that many art galleries and historical buildings are primarily visited by people from other regions, not the locals. While there are several reasons to account for this phenomenon, some measures should be taken to make these places more attractive to local people.
There are two principal causes leading to fewer inhabitants visiting local destinations. The first reason is that residents are too familiar with nearby tourist attractions. There is nothing new for them to discover when they are the chance to visit these famous places a second time. Secondly, the entrance tickets of well-known collections of art and historical sites are mostly exorbitant which means the locals who are underprivileged could not afford to pay visits. Meanwhile, visitors who usually live in affluence want to explore new sites regardless of how expensive the entrance fee is. Take people living in the Northwestern area of Vietnam as an example. It is rather hard for the residents to make ends meet, let alone to spend money on visiting some famous historical attractions there.
Fortunately, several solutions could be implemented to adopt this problem. The first approach would be that the local authorities should allocate budgets to invest in the facilities and quality of objects inside these institutions. This would be an effective way to attract residents. The second measure is that it should not be charged any entrance fee to the locals. This policy would encourage people to come here more regularly in order to broaden their knowledge about their hometown.
In conclusion, whereas there are some reasons why citizens from other parts of the world prefer to visit tourist attractions than the inhabitants, the government could address this issue with numerous effective steps.
It is true that many art galleries and historical buildings are primarily visited by people from other regions, not the locals. While there are several reasons to account for this phenomenon, some measures should be taken to make these places more attractive to local people.
There are two principal causes leading to fewer inhabitants visiting local destinations. The first reason is that residents are too familiar with nearby tourist attractions. There is nothing new for them to discover when they are the chance to visit these famous places a second time. Secondly, the entrance tickets of well-known collections of art and historical sites are mostly exorbitant which means the locals who are underprivileged could not afford to pay visits. Meanwhile, visitors who usually live in affluence want to explore new sites regardless of how expensive the entrance fee is. Take people living in the Northwestern area of Vietnam as an example. It is rather hard for the residents to make ends meet, let alone to spend money on visiting some famous historical attractions there.
Fortunately, several solutions could be implemented to adopt this problem. The first approach would be that the local authorities should allocate budgets to invest in the facilities and quality of objects inside these institutions. This would be an effective way to attract residents. The second measure is that it should not be charged any entrance fee to the locals. This policy would encourage people to come here more regularly in order to broaden their knowledge about their hometown.
In conclusion, whereas there are some reasons why citizens from other parts of the world prefer to visit tourist attractions than the inhabitants, the government could address this issue with numerous effective steps.
- The pie charts illustrate the proportion of citizens working in three categories in two Towns in two different years 1960 and 2010 It is evident that the number of people working in sales was largest in both towns in 1960 Besides Town A and town B both sa 67
- Government should make laws about people s nutrition and food choice Other argue that is their choice Discuss both views and give your opinion 73
- It is believed that pleasure reading is a better way to improve imagination and linguistic skills than watching TV I agree with this idea for some reasons Of course reading for pleasure brings benefits to the readers As a language teacher I have seen stud 61
- The chart below shows waste collection by a recycling centre from 2011 to 2015 73
- The table illustrates how much money was donated to the developing countries in the period from 2006 to 2010 by the US UK charities to support technological development Overall it is evident that most of the countries experienced an increase during the gi 73
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, second, secondly, so, well, whereas, while, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 13.1623246493 144% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 10.4138276553 29% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 7.30460921844 110% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 24.0651302605 79% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1505.0 1615.20841683 93% => OK
No of words: 285.0 315.596192385 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28070175439 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.10876417139 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75730987951 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 176.041082164 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.59298245614 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 476.1 506.74238477 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.9385429385 49.4020404114 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.333333333 106.682146367 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.06666666667 7.06120827912 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.514614742019 0.244688304435 210% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142387806415 0.084324248473 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.157103714426 0.0667982634062 235% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.349298492257 0.151304729494 231% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.307838296785 0.056905535591 541% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 13.0946893788 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.4159519038 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.58950901804 105% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 78.4519038076 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.