Essay about foreigner paying more than local visitors-feedback

Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? Ielts task 2

It is undeniable that cultural and historical attractions have played a vital role in travel. In some countries, in fact, tourists from overseas are charged more than local residents. I completely disagree with this idea.

It should be admited that certain positive implication could be perceived if more charge is imposed for oversea tourist. Firstly, thanks to this policy, the economy of host nation could be boosted.

This could lead to the improvement of facilities as well as the increase in income of indigenous people. The reason is that the government would pour finance into renovation of the places and that the people around there could run their own business such as opening restaurant, souvenir shop, hotel or establishing tourism operator.

It should be admited that a great number of disadvantages could accrue if travellers are made to pay more. To begin with, the plan could be responsible for decline in the number of visitors. This is because they could feel like they are being abused to make profit by native people. According to an article published in 2014, for example, the number of holidaymakers coming to Tokapi palace in Turkey decreased by 15% due to the high fee ticket. Moreover, foreigners would be not satisfied with the unfair service fees since they may find it discriminatory. Without unequal fees, in contrast, international tourists would be pleased and feel like they are treated equally.

In conclusion, while the idea could be desirable, it may be associated with negative effects. It is high time people did not implement it.

Your thesis doesn't really make sense, logically. The construction costs of most of those attractions are borne by the host-nation, and, usually, that money comes from taxes collected from local residents. That's why even within national and state borders, local residents often pay less than out-of-state residents to use local facilities. Sometimes, facilities (such as parking lots and even local streets) are completely reserved for local residents, and anybody who parks on streets in those areas without a window decal identifying the vehicle as being owned by a local resident receives a parking violation summons; in some areas, they're even subject to being towed.

Since you posted this, I'm assuming you also want some feedback on your writing: It's overly-complicated to express relatively simple ideas and uses some vocabulary in ways that indicate that you don't really know how to use those words, even if you understand (roughly) what they mean. It also misuses some idioms and uses others that don't really exist in spoken English.


Just say "There are some advantages of differential pricing." Alternatively, just say there are some good arguments for differential pricing."


Just say "There are also some disadvantages of differential pricing." Alternatively, just say there are also some good arguments against differential pricing."

Use the words that are necessary to communicate your ideas. Don't fall into the common ESL trap of purposely trying to use the most advanced vocabulary with which you're familiar, just to try to show off your vocabulary, because that usually backfires, as it has in this sample.

Good luck with your writing.