IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 252 - Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions
- Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 June 2017 13:17
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 107498
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
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.
You should write at least 250 words.
Model Answer 1:
It is sometimes seen that tourist attractions, including museums, important historical sites and prominent monuments, impose a higher fee for the overseas travellers than the local people. I do not agree with this idea and believe that the charges should be exactly the same.
From a perspective, it might seem logical to charge foreign tourists more to enter a traditional and historical place as most of those monuments and establishments are state-owned and the government fund those from the tax they collect from the local residences. From this regard, many feel that local residences are already paying a portion of the ticket money through the tax they pay to the government. However, this is a very narrow view and this arrangement dissatisfies the visiting tourists as many of them find it discriminatory. From a broader view, if more foreign travellers are encouraged to visit nationally important tourist attractions and important historical and cultural place, this would bring more foreign tourists and this would ensure more earning from the tourism sector. Furthermore, it would help spread the national and cultural importance around the world. From this perspective, collecting some extra money from the entrance ticket is a shortsighted step.
Furthermore, happy tourists encourage their immediate friends and family members to visit a country and some tourist attractions. If those tourists get the impression that they are being changed more money than the local people, they would psychologically feel unhappy and would share their dissatisfaction with others which would mean less foreign tourists. Many shrine and monuments are maintained by the ticket money it collects and if the number of visiting travelers get decreased, it would be tough for the authority to maintain those important places. From this perspective, having an equal entrance fee has a better impact.
To conclude, from a broader perspective having the same ticket fee, both for the residence and foreign tourists, to allow the entrance to any nationally and historically important place including museums, art exhibitions, parks and historical places is more beneficial and I completely agree that the fee should not be different.
Sample Answer 2:
Maybe everybody has experienced that they have to pay more in comparison to local people to enter a museum or zoo. For some people, it can be acceptable while others may dislike it very much. Some people advocate it while others may object it. In this essay, I will try to put myself in the position of both groups and discuss the cons and pros of each option.
Firstly, when the foreign visitors pay more for a cultural and historical attraction, it will bring more income and economic benefits for the owners of that attraction (that city, country etc.). Further, the more money is gathered through the attraction, the more service the provider can give to the tourists. They can use the money to improve the facilities offered to the tourists like translations in several languages, brochures, headphones (for listening translation). Moreover, they can educate local people about the attraction and hire them as tourist guides to assist visitors to offer a better understanding of that attraction.
On the other side, those who disagree with this opinion may say that this discrimination (that tourists must pay more than local people) may lead to a misunderstanding and they (the tourists) may think that the system is abusing them. This feeling of abusing may result in dissatisfaction and reduction in the number of tourists. Moreover, the less amount of tourist, the less income will be brought to the attraction.
For instance, The British National Museum is free for everybody to enter while the Louvre Museum in Paris costs a lot of money for visitors to enter, and both have a lot of visitors each year. I believe that the staff of each attraction must calculate the benefits and drawbacks of each measure (price difference in this case) and evaluate the consequences. To conclude, it is difficult to suggest "the golden solution" which will work out for every attraction.
[ Written by - Shahab Mehraban]
Sample Answer 3:
Some people think that tourists should pay more money to visit cultural and historical places than local residents. I do not agree with this motion. In my opinion, local people and tourists should pay the same fee to visit museums and historical places.
Firstly, if the government increases ticket price for tourists, the number of tourists who visit the country can decrease. As a result, this situation affects the country's economy badly. Moreover, cultural and historical places symbolise a country's characteristics. Therefore, they are advertised for countries. If the figure of tourists declines the opportunities for adverts local restaurants and places will also get reduced. It is also bad for countries' economy. If more money is taken from the international tourists than the local visitors, the foreigners would feel discriminated and this might lead to dissatisfaction among them.
Secondly, ticket price can be equal both for the local people and tourists because both of them have a right to visit cultural and historical places equally. To separate visitors in terms of their nationality is not a good sense and in my opinion unfair. Some countries are notorious for unfair ticket fees such as Turkey and Greece. For example, Topkapı palace is a very popular historical place in Turkey. It is visited by hundreds of thousands of people every year. It is very famous all over the world. However, according to the news, which I have read it recently, the number of foreign visitors is decreasing due to high ticket fees in Turkey. The price for tourists is four times higher than for local visitors in some museums in Turkey. Hence, many tourism agents criticise governments because of this.
In conclusion, in my view, tourists and local visitors should pay the same money to visit cultural and historical places. To increase ticket price for tourists in cultural and historical places does not enhance tourism income. By contrast, it can decrease it. Furthermore, I would argue that both local visitors and tourists have an equal right to visit cultural and historical places.
[ Written by - Ahmet Tekin ]
Sample Answer 4:
It has been a long time that countries all over the world are improving their tourism industry to boost their economy. So they are attracting foreign travellers to come and see their cultural and historical attractions. However, the implementation of additional payment to them more than the local tourists is unacceptable. This argument will be proven by looking at how improper this is because local government has subsidisation already and excursionists from other countries have made contributions already.
For one, imposing more charge to foreign visitors is objectionable because the local state has already subsidised its cultural tourism improvement. For instance, one of the new 7 wonders of nature in the world, the Puerto Princesa Underground River which is situated in Palawan, Philippines has been improved a lot through the help of not only the local administration of the province but also our national government. So all they have to do is to encourage more foreign tourists to come and see the place. Therefore, there is no need for them to pay extra fees to see the beautiful cultural heritage of our country.
In addition to this, travellers from other countries have contributed too much money already when they visit a certain country. For example, the Philippine Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) is collecting 1500 pesos as a travel tax for every foreign excursionist, an equivalent of 50 USD. This is actually a lot of contributions collected by the Philippine government from them. Thus, it is very undesirable to charge them more for improving the countries historical attractions.
In conclusion, it is disagreeable for the state of the Philippines to collect more fees from visitors of other nations due to the fact that it has subsidised its cultural and historical attractions and collecting airport tax already from them. So collecting more fees from these people is highly not recommended.
[ Written by - Rona Lyn Olivar ]