Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant example from your own experience or knowledge.
The assertion that foreign visitors should be charged more than local when they visit local culture and tourist attractions in a country seems to me constitutes a fundamental confusion/misunderstanding about this issue. Whether to agree or not is a thought-provoking question. Personally. I, like many others, tend to totally agree with the viewpoint that foreign visitors should be charged more than local when they visit local culture and tourist attractions in a country.
There are several reasons why people think that foreign visitors should pay more while visiting local culture and tourist attraction. Firstly, as far as the differential pricing is concerned, the local government can earn substantial money that might be used for the maintenance, improvement and promotion of the national heritage and culture. In addition, in several poor countries, there is no way a common person can afford the kind of prices that these monuments deserve. This is a dent in the government coffers, but it is a decision in the national interest which the tourism department of the government has the right to make. Finally, arranging required infrastructures to attract foreigners need a huge investment which can be borne by the foreigners themselves.
There are, however, a number of people having opposite view. Firstly, it is not in the best interest of a nation to ask more from foreign tourist as it is clearly shows that the government considers foreigners a source of easy money. Moreover, charging a hefty amount from the foreigners is immoral. These have travelled far to know, experience and praise the historical and cultural Jewels, which are a treasure for the entire mankind and not just one nation. Furthermore this differential pricing might hinder the opportunity to promote national treasure worldwide. People from visiting countries will be less interested to know and enjoy others culture and heritage as it will be costly.
To sum up, in spite of the fact that there is a range of conflicting arguments both supporting and opposing this certain issue, as far as I can see, it ls much more justified to support the idea. I admit it may be costly to be overly optimistic but more costly still to be pessimistic.
- Digital Digital communication technology such as email instant messaging and social media has improved communication and connection between people To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion Give reasons for your answers and include examples 82
- Many people say that we now live in ‘consumer societies’ where money and possessions are given too much importance. Others believe that consumer culture has played a vital role in improving our lives. Discuss both views and give your opinion 61
- One of the consequences of improved medical care is that people are living longer and life expectancy is increasing.Do you think the advantage of this development outweighs the disadvantages? 56
- Advertising is all around us; it is an unavoidable part of everyone's life. Some people say that advertising is a positive part of our lives while others say it is a negative one.Discuss both views and include your own opinion.Give reasons for your answer 84
- In many places, new homes are needed, but the only space available for building them is in the countryside. Some people believe it is more important to protect the countryside and not build new homes there. What is your opinion? 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 462, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...entire mankind and not just one nation. Furthermore this differential pricing might hinder ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, while, in addition, kind of, in spite of, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 7.30460921844 164% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 24.0651302605 104% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 41.998997996 88% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 8.3376753507 168% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1874.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 364.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14835164835 5.12529762239 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10246463334 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 176.041082164 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521978021978 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 581.4 506.74238477 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.587177229 49.4020404114 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.125 106.682146367 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 20.7667163134 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.3125 7.06120827912 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.67935871743 150% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216942751804 0.244688304435 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0702649180606 0.084324248473 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069232491408 0.0667982634062 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127680875148 0.151304729494 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0654847702253 0.056905535591 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 13.0946893788 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.4159519038 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => 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.