Over the last few decades, there has been an increase in international tourism. Some people think that tourism is beneficial for local communities and should be encouraged. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Recently, the issue of tourism has become the subject of heated debate. Some people assert that global tourism benefits local communities a great deal and should not be discouraged, 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 there are a number of advantages that can be derived from a boom in the tourism industry. Perhaps the principal benefit is that the development of tourism invigorates economic growth considering that it attracts investment from multinational firms and governments across the globe. In addition, the advancement of tourism sectors creates a multitude of employment opportunities in the building of facilities and the updating of infrastructure, leading locals to have an improved standard of living. To provide a hypothetical example, if it were not for tourism, there would be much higher unemployment rates in a myriad of renowned cities amongst overseas visitors, such as London and Paris. For these reasons, there does seem to be a solid basis for several of the arguments in favour of tourism.
On the other hand, it seems short-sighted to contend that developments in global tourism merely bring with it positives. The most oft-cited argument against such a view is that a growth in the tourism sector poses a threat to the local environment since a huge amount of waste is produced by foreign travellers. As an illustration, one notable natural heritage site designated by UNESCO in South Korea had more than 500 species of birds in 2010. However, the majority of them became extinct due to a great deal of garbage generated by tourists. Furthermore, some visitors commit vandalism, which places a heavy burden on local governments as they have to spend vast sums of public money in order to restore damaged facilities. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-09 | idid382021 | 89 | view |
| 2022-08-07 | idid382021 | 89 | view |
| 2022-03-30 | idid382021 | 89 | view |
| 2022-03-30 | idid382021 | 89 | view |
| 2021-09-11 | idid382002 | 89 | view |
- Q11 Many animal species in the world are becoming extinct nowadays Some people say that countries and individuals should protect these animals from dying out while others say we should concentrate more on problems of human beings Discuss both views and gi 84
- With the increasing demand for energy sources of oil and gas people should look for sources of oil and gas in remote and untouched natural places Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such areas 89
- Q2 At the present time most people do not seem to lead healthy lifestyles What are the reasons and how can we solve these problems 84
- QQ13 The spread of multinational companies and the increase of globalization produces positive effects for everyone To what extent do you agree or disagree 11
- Q 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 bo 84
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, furthermore, however, if, so, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 10.4138276553 38% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 24.0651302605 112% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1912.0 1615.20841683 118% => OK
No of words: 370.0 315.596192385 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16756756757 5.12529762239 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94993035785 2.80592935109 105% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.602702702703 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 611.1 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.76152304609 168% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.2975951904 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8564751578 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.470588235 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7647058824 20.7667163134 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
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: 0.227928505181 0.244688304435 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635362154107 0.084324248473 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562996036751 0.0667982634062 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124335022763 0.151304729494 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757956521378 0.056905535591 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.0946893788 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 50.2224549098 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.3001002004 112% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.76 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 78.4519038076 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 9.78957915832 87% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.1190380762 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 10.7795591182 121% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.