Câu hỏi:

08/01/2025 141

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

Quảng cáo

Trả lời:

verified
Giải bởi Vietjack

Sample 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 shrines 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 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. 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. 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 may lead to a misunderstanding, and they 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 and evaluate the consequences. To conclude, it is difficult to suggest "the golden solution" which will work out for every attraction.

Sample 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.

Sample 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.

Sample 5:

In the contemporary epoch, tourism is the most prominent industry as people all around the globe are striving to take vacations either regularly or intermittently. It is irrefutable that whether tourists from other nations should be charged extra compared to the local people frequently generates a remarkable deal of heated debate. In my perspective, I vehemently accord with the mentioned assertion, and this discourse will elucidate the significance of collecting extra charges from foreigners with credible illustrations.

To start with, individuals take trips to a plethora of regions according to their convenience. These can be either within the country or in other nations. When people from foreign lands visit, they are charged more than the local communities. The government establishes these norms and regulations in order to enhance the economy by collecting massive monetary incentives. Furthermore, it has minimal impact on foreigners as they are wealthy and affluent to afford the extra costs charged. To exemplify, the Taj Mahal is one of the historical mascots of India and is renowned for its rich cultural heritage. Make a visit, and the entrance fee is charged a hundred bucks extra for foreigners. This eventually leads to substantial growth in the overall tourism industry.

Similarly, the livelihood of common people that are reliant on tourism has enormous benefits by charging more from international visitors. When they visit numerous cultural, religious and historical sites, many shopkeepers make a living by selling handmade handicrafts that are well known in their respective regions and have a vintage cultural background. In such scenarios, foreigners are deeply interested in getting acquainted with the traditional materials and are overwhelmed to pay more and help poor citizens. This gradually increases the lifestyle of the underprivileged communities employed in this industry.

Considering everything, the tourism industry is evolving tremendously with a small surcharge of rates for international visitors and is fruitful not only to local authorities but also to residents.

Sample 6:

It is sometimes argued that tourists from overseas should be charged more than local residents to visit important sites and monuments. I completely disagree with this idea.

The argument in favour of higher prices for foreign tourists would be that cultural or historical attractions often depend on state subsidies to keep them going, which means that the resident population already pays money to these sites through the tax system. However, I believe this to be a very shortsighted view. Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country with the money they spend on a wide range of goods and services, including food, souvenirs, accommodation and travel. The governments and inhabitants of every country should be happy to subsidise important tourist sites and encourage people from the rest of the world to visit them.

If travellers realised that they would have to pay more to visit historical and cultural attractions in a particular nation, they would perhaps decide not to go to that country on holiday. To take the UK as an example, the tourism industry and many related jobs rely on visitors coming to the country to see places like Windsor Castle or Saint Paul’s Cathedral. These two sites charge the same price regardless of nationality, and this helps to promote the nation’s cultural heritage. If overseas tourists stopped coming due to higher prices, there would be a risk of insufficient funding for the maintenance of these important buildings.

In conclusion, I believe that every effort should be made to attract tourists from overseas, and it would be counterproductive to make them pay more than local residents.

Sample 7:

It is believed by some people that higher entry fees for established places should be set for foreign tourists compared to residents. In my opinion, this is a necessary measure as it would greatly encourage local people to pay more attention to their culture and history heritage. Firstly, this essay will discuss the expected increase in visits by locals, and secondly, it will analyze the financial support getting from higher prices for international visitors.

The primary reason why tourists should pay more is that it may urge local people to become acquainted with famous attractions of their region. In other words, having such a financial advantage they would be more interested in visiting cultural or historical places for a lower entrance fee. For example, it has been revealed that in cities with such payment system residents started to show their attention to local attractions three times more frequently.

Another point to consider charging higher fees from foreign visitors is significant financial benefits which facilitate keeping local attractions in proper condition. On no account should the importance of additional revenues for local attractions be ignored since it would greatly increase the opportunity for stable prosperity. To illustrate, recent research has shown that more than a half of historical museums in East Europe are funded only with entry fees, which are much higher for foreign visitors.

In conclusion, I am strongly convinced that charging foreign visitors with the higher price might help to keep historical and cultural heritage in sustainable condition as well as encourage local people to visit these places because of financial benefit.

Sample 8:

It is irrefutable that every nation has a different culture and mysterious history. People are more willing to interact with this heritage and are curious to travel to various destinations with incredible specific backgrounds. International commuters should reimburse for historical monuments as compared with natives. However, I believe that despite facing the serious challenge of imposing a massive amount, foreign visitors still hold their position firmly. Several arguments can be presented to defend my opinion.

The first argument favouring international visitors is that it does not require additional charges to visit any country. This offers the visitors a high level of flexibility to easily move anywhere without facing any difficulties. For instance, international people easily interact with the history or culture they are seeking without extra charge. Furthermore, foreign commuters have immensely boosted the economy of the nations; this leads authorities easily manage the infrastructure or fulfil the basic need of the country with contributions best assessed through the visitors. To add, the staff gives tremendous benefits to increase the sales of local products worldwide. Other passengers also put their intentions towards the local locations once they would be treated the same as local people even without discrimination. So that no other medium is better than travellers in spreading the popularity of historical events in the countries. Finally, in many parts of the world, people still do not have sufficient funding to spend additional charges to explore various places; if government impose the fees same as local people thus leads thousands of visitors to come forward and show their interest in the specific locations which has a deep history of the nation.

It is implied that the appetite for international travellers should pay more money to visit historical attractions to preserve these precious buildings conveniently because the maintenance of old structures is quite expensive, and a government is unable to invest massive funds to keep the building alive for a long time. Through the foreign passengers, there is the possibility of regular updates and rapid access to many people to know the history of about country. For example, India is a land of monuments, so the Indian government took the initiative to surge the prices of old buildings for international visitors. These practices help to protect these monuments with the funding of immigrants. Therefore, I believe that the government needs to consider this case related to overseas commuters and hike the charges with a nominal margin that has no impact on their financials.

To put it in a nutshell, I pen down saying that, inclined, the charges of international visitors have not to lead to any decline in the circulation of visitors. It is still going great, Guns. The situation might get change in future. However, when would hope and imagine that oversees visitors gradually surge and would be no space for local people in the days to come and enhance the condition of every country and remove the deprivation from the nation.

Sample 9:

It is often proposed that overseas tourists should bear a higher cost than residents when visiting places of cultural and historical significance. While I acknowledge the economic benefits of this viewpoint, I predominantly disagree with this stance for reasons of fairness and hospitality, which I will elaborate on below.

On one hand, the argument to charge foreigners more could be viewed as economically justifiable. Tourist attractions, particularly those of cultural and historical importance, often require substantial funds for maintenance and preservation. These expenses could be offset by charging international tourists a higher fee. This additional revenue could then be utilized to enhance the experience of visitors, making these sites even more appealing and potentially attracting more tourists. For example, the revenue could be used to improve facilities, enhance displays, or provide more informative tours.

However, on the other hand, imposing such a policy might create a perception of inequity and could tarnish a nation's reputation for hospitality. Visitors, as temporary members of a host community, should be treated with equal respect and dignity, not regarded merely as a source of income. This egalitarian approach fosters a spirit of unity and openness, crucial for promoting cultural exchange and mutual understanding. Furthermore, a policy of increased pricing for foreigners may dissuade budget-conscious travelers from visiting these attractions, thereby counterproductively reducing overall revenue and international exposure.

In conclusion, while charging foreign visitors more for historical and cultural sites might offer some financial benefits, I strongly believe that the potential harm to a country's image and the potential deterrent to visitors outweigh these advantages.

Sample 10:

Nowadays tourism is playing a vital part for the development of many countries’ economy. However, it has detrimental effects, causing serious damages to those attractive places. Some people argue that there should be additional taxes, in order to cover up those loses. Although, it is pivotal to apply some extra charges to protect such places, there should be some release on those taxes, as will now be discussed.

There is no debate about the fact that there should be a way to find sufficient financial support to protect the damaged property. The maintenance charges are becoming very expensive, and some people try to do harmful activities to those attractive places to increase those damages. In addition to that, protection of the actual value of tourism places is important for future generations. If there is not much repairing done on damages as a result of financial difficulties, then there are no such places for young generation to visit in the future.

On the other hand, it seems that there should be some flexibility on those higher charges from tourists. Economically, foreign income of any region is making considerable contribution to its development. If the foreigners feel that they are being charged heavily, they might not try to visit those places and it may lead to a reduction of foreign income, which means there are some negative effects on employees as well. The second relevant idea is the popularity of the place. As a result of affordable fees, a lot of people have a chance to explore the tourism places. Therefore, there is an opportunity to become famous in those places around the world.

In conclusion, extra taxes are needed to be applied in order to run those places properly, meeting expenses to maintain, while setting reasonable fees on tourists to receive higher income to develop the economy.

Sample 11:

For many countries, tourism is an important industry that supports and runs the economy of a country. Moreover, there is a heated argument between the two sides regarding whether the foreign tourist should be charged higher than the local tourist for visiting the historical and cultural places. This topic has two different sides which offer valid arguments to support their idea. Let’s have a glimpse of these ideas before reaching any conclusion.

To begin with, foreign tourists visit any heritage or any foreign historical places once in their lifetime. They don’t often visit these places. So in a form of generosity, they should be charged in the same way as the local people are charged for visiting such places. Additionally, allowing the foreign tourist to visit these places at a reasonable and same charge will enhance the cultural value and would help to spread our culture to different nations and different people, thus enhancing our historical and cultural importance among international tourists. Moreover, by allowing international tourists we are not only promoting our culture but also our markets which attract the foreign tourists a lot. India is a diverse country in many facets and this diversity attracts huge tourists which is very beneficial for a country.

On the other hand, many still believe that the international tourist should be charged higher than the local tourist to generate additional income from the international tourist. As we all are aware that India has a diverse culture which attracts huge tourists from overseas. Thus, charging a high amount can be very beneficial for a country. These high charges are used for the maintenance of the country. It is the responsibility of the nation to take care of their cultural and historical monuments and places so that they can promote their cultural and historical pride.

In conclusion, it might not seem appropriate to charge high prices for foreign tourists to visit many historical and cultural places of any nation.

Sample 12:

The historical monuments and symbolic places of a country are pride in themselves. Exploring these places can be the main aim or the main purpose for a tourist. But currently, there is a discussion regarding the distribution of the fees between the local visitors and the foreign tourist. The discussion states that the international tourist should be charged higher as compared to the local visitors.

Firstly, tourism is the major sector for the financial stability of a nation. Promoting tourism would not only promote our cultural and historical knowledge but would also stimulate the economy of a nation. Visiting and exploring these cultural sites would increase the pride of a nation through international tourists. By allowing the foreign tourist to visit these places at a very reasonable and similar price would not create a rift in the mind of the tourist and would help to promote more tourism among different international tourists. Charging a difference may not seem to be generous and would appear to be narrow to the international tourist. This can even affect the image of a country and would directly affect the tourism sector of a nation.

Secondly, if we see from a broader perspective, we can find that charging the same money would be more beneficial for running after few additional charges. Keeping a low reasonable charge will flourish the tourism sector of a nation and simultaneously, would add value to the culture and heritage of a nation.

To conclude, from a wider perspective it is wiser and more prudent to charge international tourism in the same way as we charge local tourists.

Sample 13:

For many, charging high fees from international tourists may seem to be appropriate but to many, it is not a generous act of running the economy. Both sides have their own opinion to support their arguments. Let’s take a glance at both the arguments before concluding up.

To begin with, many believe that charging high income from foreign tourists can help to increase the economy of a country by prospering the tourism sector. Moreover, by charging additional charges extra services can be given to the visitors so that they are tempted to visit these places. This extra income can be used to add extra facilities step by step to make the tourism sector appealing.

On the other hand, many believe that displaying such discriminatory behavior among international tourists and local tourists can ruin the image of that country. It can create a sense of misunderstanding and can create a difference of opinion. Additional such sought of behavior can even affect the tourism sector and the cultural values. Thus, there would be a sense of dissatisfaction among the tourists resulting in the reduction of international tourists visiting a particular country.

To conclude, every money charged should be equal for every tourist so that more visitors can visit the historical and cultural places of a particular country.

Sample 14:

For the past few decades most countries have witnessed a rapid increase in tourists into their borders, and there is an argument that foreign visitors to heritage sites should be charged more than locals. I completely disagree with this idea.

At first glance, higher prices for visitors from overseas seem reasonable, as most cultural and historic monuments are restored and maintained using government funding, meaning that local people already pay to these sites through the tax system. However, upon further reflection one would find that such an approach is at best short-sighted, at worst counterproductive.

Foreign tourists contribute to the economy of the host country not only by paying entrance fees to cultural and historical sites, but also by spending on a wide range of goods and services, including transportation, food and accommodation. The money they spend could be a boon to local businesses, the prosperity of which helps to create jobs for local residents. When foreign visitors have to pay more to visit holiday destinations in a particular country, they may feel that they are treated unfairly and decide not to visit that country in the first place. Over time, this will result in a decline in the overall number of tourists and the attendant fall in tourism revenue and employment opportunities, to the detriment of everyone. It is therefore wiser for important sites and monuments to charge the same price regardless of nationality, an approach that is adopted by many world-famous tourist attractions such as the Forbidden City and Buckingham Palace.

To sum up, considering the contributions foreign tourists make to the economy of the host community, it is important that these tourists be able to pay the same as locals.

Sample 15:

The idea that foreign tourists should pay more than locals to visit important sites and monuments is sometimes put forward. However, I completely disagree with this viewpoint.

Some argue that residents already contribute through taxes to the maintenance and preservation of cultural and historical sites. But I think this is short-sighted. Tourists from overseas contribute significantly to the economy of the host country through their spending on a wide range of goods and services, such as food, souvenirs, accommodation, and travel. Therefore, governments and locals should be glad to support tourist sites and encourage foreign visitors to explore them.

If overseas visitors were charged higher prices to visit cultural and historical sites, it could discourage them from traveling to that country altogether. For example, in the UK, places like Windsor Castle and St. Paul’s Cathedral charge the same admission fee for all visitors, regardless of their nationality. This helps promote the country’s cultural heritage, and it is crucial for the tourism industry, which provides many jobs. If foreign visitors stopped coming, it would pose a risk to the maintenance and preservation of these important sites.

In summary, I believe that it is important to make an effort to attract foreign tourists, and it would be counterproductive to charge them more than locals to visit historical and cultural sites.

Sample 16:

Nowadays, tourism is the number one source of income of most towns especially in my country- Philippines. Visitors from foreign land and even the locals are being charged with entrance fees by merely visiting the beaches, zoos, amusements parks and even the historical places in a certain town in exchange for the preservation cost and profit in favor of the town being visited. Apart from this, some say that visitors from the place should pay less than those foreign ones, I strongly agree on this idea.

Tourist attractions in a town or city are being maintained and taken cared of by locals so they should primarily benefit from it. The favors should be given back to its people through the discounted prices they can enjoy every time they visit tourist attraction in the local area.

Secondly, the inhabitants of the area are the ones who have paid taxes to support the development of their hometown. Needless to say, residents are already contributing to the cost of tickets through the monthly taxes they pay.

Lastly, by lowering the cost of visitation fees of the locals, they will be encouraged to invite friends, workmates and other potential visitors in their own place. It provides a sense of confidence and pride to invite others and be proud with the support that the local government gives to its people.

In the end, it is logical to say that the locals must enjoy a lesser charge than foreign visitors in visiting historically important places including museums, art exhibitions and parks. The ideas do return the favor of patriotism. Besides, government business us nothing if its people are not happy to support it.

Sample 17:

Opinions are divided when it comes down to whether international holidaymakers should be charged more than the natives for their visits to cultural and historical places. In this case, I am completely inclined to the notion that visitors from overseas should pay more money as the admission fee for entry to the tourist attractions.

For a start, a powerful argument in favour of overseas holidaymakers shouldering a substantial share of admission revenue is that local inhabitants are already contributing to the maintenance and upkeep of their historic and cultural sites through taxes. In fact, visitors from foreign countries are not being swindled; they are paying the usual market rate while nationals receive a discount on account of being a taxpayer. A case in point is overseas university admission. If one gains admission to a foreign university, he or she is expected to be charged considerably more than his or her counterparts, as they or their parents pay taxes in that country.

Similarly, another stronger argument is that the costs of running and upkeeping historic and cultural attractions are huge, and the higher fees for international holidaymakers help to fund this, while allowing locals to enjoy the best of their own cultural and historic attractions at a rate that is not prohibitive. Besides, many countries employ this slanted entrance fees model. Take the Pyramids of Egypt for example. Foreign tourists pay 420 Egyptian pounds (US$ 23) for a ticket that allows the entrance to the chambers of the Great Pyramid, whereas Egyptians are able to enter for 20 Egyptian pounds.

All things considered; it seems reasonable enough to assume that the dual pricing proves completely justified. As a taxpayer, citizens are permitted to enter their country’s historic and cultural sites at a price that should not be prohibited.

CÂU HỎI HOT CÙNG CHỦ ĐỀ

Lời giải

Sample 1:

In recent years, there have been a number of everyday problems that people in big cities have to cope with. This essay will discuss two major problems, pollution and information overload, which I believe should lead governments to encourage people to move to regional areas.

These days, increased levels of pollution have been a great cause for concern among residents of big cities. Due to high volumes of traffic, large quantities of pollutants are being released into the atmosphere, causing the degradation of air quality, which is said to be a significant contributor to various types of respiratory disease, such as lung cancer. Additionally, people in big cities are being bombarded with too much information from the media, including TV, social media, and advertising, with a large proportion of this information being fake or exaggerated. This can lead to confusion or, in some cases, social anarchy.

In my opinion, governments should do what they can to encourage city residents to move to regional areas. Firstly, it will reduce the number of vehicles in cities, which will definitely reduce the levels of air pollution, which is hazardous to the health of citizens. Furthermore, fewer people living in big cities will relieve the pressure on the housing supply, where many people are forced to live in small, uncomfortable spaces. Studies have shown that people’s living spaces have a direct impact on their mental health and how they perform at work.

In conclusion, severe air pollution and a bombardment of information are among the most serious problems facing city residents nowadays, and personally, I feel that authorities should encourage people to relocate to other areas to live.

Sample 2:

It is true that nowadays city residents have to encounter a large number of problems, especially those concerning environmental and social factors. However, encouraging people to migrate to smaller provincial towns, in my opinion, is not a viable solution to these problems.

As living in a metropolis, people are confronted with high level of air pollution, which is caused mainly by the exhaust fumes released into the atmosphere from petrol-driven vehicles. The more populated the city is, the higher the demand for traveling becomes, and as a result, the higher the level of air pollution will be. Living in this environment for a long time is supposed to be detrimental to human’s health as polluted air is the main contributor to respiratory diseases. Another problem involves social aspects such as the issue of unemployment. As many people moving to big cities do not have any skills or qualifications, they are unlikely to find a job. This higher unemployment rate can give rise to the increased criminal activities threatening inhabitants’ life.

Since dwelling in urban centers can have negative impacts, some governments tend to encourage the citizens to relocate to smaller regional towns, but I do not think this will be effective. The first reason for my belief is that this policy cannot guarantee a reduction in air pollution because people still have to commute to their workplace, which is usually located in city center. Indeed, living far away from cities means that people even have to travel a much longer distance to work, which, in fact, can increase the amount of exhaust emissions. The second reason is that finding jobs in the countryside is certainly not easier than in urban areas. Job opportunities in these places are much lower and people usually have to do low-paid jobs if they work in smaller and less developed towns.

In conclusion, it is obvious that living in big cities can create a number of problems, but encouraging people to migrate to suburban areas is, in my opinion, totally not a viable measure at least when it comes to addressing the problems concerning pollution and unemployment.

Sample 3:

It is true that people in major cities are confronting a number of problems in their routine life. This essay will discuss some of these problems and explain the writer’s view that citizens should be encouraged to relocate to the countryside or regional towns.

The urban population is grappling against two main problems out of many. The first issue is the lower quality of life due to the increasingly heavier burden on the existing urban infrastructure. This is because rural immigrants in pursuit of employment opportunities keep inundating the downtown areas of most major cities. For example, most schools and hospitals located in XYZ city are frequently overloaded, making these services inaccessible to the majority of people of lower classes. The second issue is the traffic jam due to the burgeoning car ownership. Arguably, cars take up more space than a motorbike while its capacity to accommodate passengers is far inferior to that of a bus. This weakness results in bumper-to-bumper traffic, particularly in downtown areas where many drivers have to inch along to get away from the terrible traffic.

I think government should encourage citizens to move away from major cities. This is due to the fact that this would relieve the current pressure on the infrastructure. Fewer people would need public services such as hospitals or schools and the roads would be more spacious, ensuring a smooth traffic flow with its resultant fewer accidents for city dwellers. In addition, the resources in the countryside or other less developed regions would be better exploited as there might be available workforce there. For instance, there would be more laborers during harvesting time in the countryside, or skilled or knowledgeable people would help with the construction work in smaller regions, spurring the growth of the local area as well as the nation as a whole.

In conclusion, there are many problems that people in cities are facing, and it is advisable that government encourage the residents to consider relocation to smaller regional areas with a view to solving these issues.

Sample 4:

It is true that nowadays people are shifting to larger cities. There are several negative consequences of this moot issue, and to cope with the current problems, the authorities should encourage individuals to move to smaller cities or even to the countryside.

To begin with, an enormous number of people create problems. One negative consequence is that the urban population would go on increasing and cause housing problems. This leads to the creation of underdeveloped slum areas, where underprivileged individuals must live in poor living conditions like lacking medical care or even drinking water. Another issue is the traffic jam due to the burgeoning car ownership. Arguably, cars take up more space than a motorbike while its capacity to accommodate passengers is far inferior to that of a bus. This weakness results in bumper-to-bumper traffic particularly in downtown areas where many drivers have to inch along to get away from the terrible traffic.

Governments should take steps to move a certain number of city dwellers to less populated areas. The main reason is that shifting people to towns or even the countryside helps to decrease the unemployment rate. This is because as more and more people apply for the same position within a company, it may intensify the competition among employees, making it significantly more difficult to be chosen. Towns, however, due to industrialization, are now able to provide different jobs for engineers or officers in new factories. Therefore, by encouraging job seekers to move to these newly developed areas, the government can lower the number of unemployed individuals in cities.

In conclusion, an increasing number of people living in cities certainly creates housing problems and traffic congestion, and governments should encourage its citizens to migrate to towns.

Sample 5:

More and more people live in cities today than at any point in the past and this trend will likely continue in the future. This has resulted in many problems including extreme overcrowding and governments should take measures to make living outside cities more attractive.

There are a wide range of drawbacks associated with the rise of modern cities but one of the most obvious issues is related to population density. The large number of people crammed into a relatively small area has caused expensive housing, increased traffic and severe pollution. For example, apartment prices in mega-cities like Tokyo and New York have soared to the point where only the wealthiest inhabitants can afford decent living standards. Regardless of financial status, all city dwellers have to deal with more and more traffic jams as the population increases while the area of cities remains fixed. Finally, all these people living and travelling in one place puts a tremendous strain on the environment and some cities, like Beijing in China, have become dangerously polluted.

In my opinion, governments have a duty to encourage citizens to move to more rural areas. If cities continue to expand unabated then the above problems will only get worse. We might one day find ourselves living in densely packed, heavily polluted cities that resemble scenes from a dystopian science fiction film. In order to prevent this from happening, the government can give tax breaks to companies that choose to locate offices and production facilities outside the city. This will provide more jobs for people who are willing to live in the countryside.

In conclusion, the concerns related to overcrowding in cities can and should be somewhat countered by governments incentivising living in rural areas. If this is done then we may still face problems related to cities in the future, but at least they will not be as serious.

Sample 6:

Residing in metropolitan cities has been stimulating some crucial issues in daily activities. Congestion and air pollution are problems related to living in big cities. Thus, these issues have to be tackled by governments through plausible actions such as enhancing numerous public transportations and controlling the price of basic needs instead of encouraging societies to relocate to smaller regional towns.

Societies face many issues in metropolitan cities as traffic jams and quality of air pollution. In big cities, some roads are dominated by private cars, then the number of people using these private cars is higher than in other cities. As a result, there is a phenomenon like congestion in the road that can occur with long duration. Mostly, people who are workers have to go to office and back home regularly using private cars. This situation has a bad impact on utilizing time because they spend more time just on the road and have a chance of becoming late to go to office. Another problem that has influenced widely on people is reducing air quality. When individuals live in larger cities is a risk to the respiratory system, an individual usually takes breath frequently which contains more emissions produced by private cars. Thus, individuals are able to get some diseases such as asthma.

What authorities should do is to deliver better public transportation. These facilities have to consider integration on reaching some ways, an efficiency of time and cost of transportation. If the government ponders this solution, individuals will use this type of transportation. For instance, after the government applied an integration of public transportation in Bandung, societies directly used public transportation. Therefore, the number of private cars has dropped.

To sum up, congestion and quality of air quality are common issues in metropolitan cities. Considering encouraging relocation to smaller cities is not the best solution, but governments can tackle some problems regarding living in metropolitan cities through improving of public transportation.

Lời giải

Sample 1:

The relationship between equality and personal accomplishments has gained significant attention in the last few years. Some claim that a fair society can encourage their people to succeed as they treat everyone in the same manner, while others oppose that personal achievement as a result of success and failure is based on their merits. I firmly believe that a combination of both equal and individualistic approaches is the key to success.

To begin with, gender equality is not only a fundamental right but also a necessary foundation for a peaceful and prosperous life. It is quite essential to utilize the full human potential for sustainable development. For example, in western countries, women are equally respected and given opportunities as men. However, in middle east countries or Eurasia, they do not have the same mindset, and women are still referred to be inferior to men. We observe an understandable difference in both western and eastern countries’ prosperity which gives us an understanding of the egalitarian society’s role in giving equal opportunities to men and women, to rich and poor, to upper class and lower class.

On the other hand, an individualistic approach is the second step after getting equal opportunities from an egalitarian society as it only creates favourable conditions, but an individual is responsible for taking the opportunity and making an effort to achieve the goal for its positive outcome. If we take an example of the ranking scoreboard, it can help evaluate the individuals’ performances on their merits.

To conclude, both equality and personal success are interdependent. Giving equal opportunities to all individuals is the first step to fair inclusion, and individual performance is the second step to thriving.

Sample 2:

There is a strong interest in equality and personal achievement in today’s world. In my opinion, these terms are different from each other. There must be equality in human beings’ rights, but equality in achievement can not be considered fair.

There must be quality in education for each person irrespective of their religion or family status. Everyone has the right to get a good education, and the government should provide facilities so that education will be free for all. If it is not free, then it should be less cheap so that no one hesitates to get an education. For example, to get admission to a well-known school/college, sometimes we need to pay some extra money, and it is not a good sign in our society, and due to this, some students cannot afford their expenses and miss the chance to join their preferred institute.

On the other hand, equality in job achievement is not a good sign, and one should get a prize as per their merits. For example, IT sector jobs have different roles, and everyone employed has to work as per their task assignments. If we give equal importance to each one, then the one who is giving extra effort to the work will feel demotivated, affecting their performance. Also, if we give equal salary to each one, it may help maintain a good work environment, but it will be a disgrace for the one who has the highest knowledge compared to the others.

In conclusion, it is good to have equality in some areas, but we should also pay attention to people’s knowledge.

Sample 3:

According to the Ecological Systems Theory, the environment that a person lives in has the most significant influence on his/her personal development. Some argue that certain personal traits are closely associated with a person’s achievement. However, I will argue in this essay that social equality is the key to an individual’s success in general from two aspects: gender equality and education equality.

The roles that women play in societies often vary significantly among different regions of the world. Societies, that offer women more freedom in terms of educational and vocational choices, could possess more desirable opportunities to facilitate women in pursuing their dreams and achieving their potentials. Women in Australia, for example, where the equality between males and females is considerably advance, could be more likely to achieve higher personal successes than women in Pakistan where females often remain inferior to males in society.

Education equality is another effect that could largely influence on one’s accomplishment. As human society develops, the ability of literacy and the access to modern technologies become increasingly important in individuals’ personal development. Residents of regions where free fundamental education and better access to technologies, such as the internet and computers, are provided, could have increasing numbers of opportunities to exercise their personal traits, thus, to succeed in the fields of their choices.

To conclude, an egalitarian society can facilitate more achievements among individuals. The gender and education equalities are two fundamental ones that could ensure everyone in the society, both males and females, to have the relatively equal opportunity to succeed.

Sample 4:

The concern and ongoing debate in the relationship between equality and personal success have developed recently. Some are convinced that individuals have marvellous opportunities to gain their success in egalitarian societies where everyone is treated in the same manner no matter what their educational, economical and intellectual levels are. While the opponents conceive that the high level of attainment will happen only if the individuals are free to achieve both the success and failure based on their own capabilities. I entirely believe that there is a strong connection between equality and personal success and this essay aims to elaborate that the egalitarian society is the best option for people.

As the era is developing, some aspects among the general public are changing and equality is one of those aspects. The concept of equality has been spread in the whole world and it results in many successes in egalitarian communities. Egalitarian gives fantastic chance to people to gain their achievement since there is no restriction for people in order to reach their success. In this situation, skill and knowledge are the main factors to achieve it. In Indonesia, for example, it was hard for women to have positions in certain sectors such as politics and military because most people were convinced that it was not appropriate for women to become either politician or a defence personnel. Yet, as the people is more open-minded now, it is no longer an issue and women can achieve their success in any sectors based on their ability. Thus, the egalitarian trend has influenced the society’s achievement.

Besides, equal rights and opportunities trigger people to become more competitive in a positive way and have more spirit to achieve something. Furthermore, people can get motivation from their surrounding that has similar objectives. In a classroom, for instance, every pupil has the same rights to be the champ without be differentiated by the teacher. While the students are surrounded by spirited fellows, they will learn better. In this case, having equal opportunities and rights urge people to gain the best achievement. Therefore, egalitarian concepts provide more chance to every people to become successful.

In conclusion, equality motivates people to work together and help each other. In a society where discrimination is present, even based on people’s capability, greater good can never be achieved.

Sample 5:

Some people believe that an egalitarian society engenders greater personal achievements for its people. However, others reject this notion as they believe such achievements can only be obtained based on internal factors such as individual strengths. While there is a directly proportional relationship between equality and personal achievements, I only partly agree with this notion as equality can only contribute so much to an individual’s success.

Admittedly, a fair society does provide a good foundation for personal achievement. With every person being given the same opportunities and rights, everyone would have the appropriate foundation to try and excel at what they do. As such, people would likely be given the same career opportunities and privileges, which can facilitate an equal chance for success among them. The practicality of such a society can be seen in the case of Sweden and Norway, where tertiary education is provided equally and free of charge to citizens. With everyone being given the chance to pursue higher learning and by extension better job opportunities, the workforce of these two countries display a higher level of education and far better earnings compared to the average nation.

However, it is also my firm conviction that there are other individual factors contributing to personal accomplishments besides equality. This is because equality can only go so far as to offer an initial head start for people on the long road to greater accomplishment, which is not sufficient to guarantee their success. By contrast, individual qualities have a much more extensive and long-term impact on any individual’s career. Only with qualities such as perseverance and determination can a person be willing to try and fail over and over in order to gain experience and achieve what they want. This is precisely why among millions of people that are given an equal chance to succeed, only those who are truly determined and resilient can find success.

In conclusion, despite my acknowledgement of the positive relationship between an egalitarian society and the achievement of its people, I also contend that this correlation is limited due to the greater importance of individual merits. Since the prospect of an all-equal society is somewhat negligible, it is advisable that people strive to improve their personal qualities to stand a better chance of success.

Sample 6:

The connection between equality and personal success is a complex topic that has been extensively discussed. Some argue that individuals can accomplish more in societies that prioritize equal treatment, while others believe that personal achievement is only possible when individuals have the freedom to succeed or fail based on their abilities.

Some individuals argue that in egalitarian societies, people can achieve greater success. This is because when individuals are in a fair society, they can accomplish more with the assistance of others. Additionally, there are more opportunities available when society is fair in all aspects. An egalitarian society refers to a society where everyone is treated equally, regardless of their race, gender, religion, or age. For example, India is often seen as a representation of an egalitarian society due to its constitution and various practices that promote equality.

However, there are others who argue that individuals can only achieve significant personal success if they have the freedom to either succeed or fail based on their own abilities.  I personally share this viewpoint because in a society that is highly competitive, success can only be attained when individuals have the liberty to make their own choices. By being able to choose their own path and pursue their own aspirations rather than conforming to others' expectations, individuals can truly achieve self-fulfillment. This can only be accomplished through the utilization of one's full potential and dedication to hard work.

In conclusion, both viewpoints had equal advantages and disadvantages. However, I agree with the viewpoint that high levels of personal achievement are possible only if individuals are free to succeed or fail.

Sample 7:

An egalitarian society is one where all people are considered equal in everything such as rights and opportunities. For instance, education plays a crucial role in everyone’s life and their success. Everyone in society has the right to get free schooling, which is offered by the government of a nation. Personally, I believe that people living in such a society have the potential to accomplish more. 

Furthermore, attaining personal accomplishments will serve as a guide for enhancing ourselves and enable us to reach our utmost capabilities. Moreover, we can enhance different facets of our lives, including self-assurance, communication abilities, productivity, and more.

However, there are some individuals who hold the belief that individuals can only achieve high levels of personal success if they have the freedom to either succeed or fail based on their own abilities. I believe that equality does not hinder people's freedom to succeed or fail. In fact, I argue that individuals would be motivated and perform well in a society that promoted equality. Moreover, the inequality in a society will lead to social cohesion, negative impact on health and well being, economic growth, etc. 

To sum up, I think it is important to strike a balance between both perspectives as they have their own advantages and disadvantages. Also promoting equality in society can also positively impact an individual's personal accomplishments. 

Sample 8:

In today's world, the environment has a significant impact on people's growth in various ways. While some argue that personal success can only be attained when individuals have the freedom to succeed or fail based on their own abilities, I firmly believe that a fair society that highly values equality allows individuals to achieve even greater success.

Equality means that every individual should be considered of equal worth and should be treated fairly, regardless of their personal characteristics, skills, or way of life. This implies that everyone should have equal rights, opportunities, and be treated with the same level of respect. By promoting equality in society, individuals can benefit in various ways, including fair treatment, respect, access to opportunities, economic efficiency, and enhanced education. For instance, countries like Pakistan, Syria, Mauritania are considered as an unfair country because of various reasons, such as gender-based violence, discrimination. And in these countries still personal success is out of reach for women.

Furthermore, education significantly contributes to individual achievement. Despite the presence of social inequality, numerous countries continue to struggle with high levels of illiteracy. For example, nations such as Norway, North Korea, and Lithuania boast a 100% literacy rate, while countries like Niger, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have alarmingly high rates of illiteracy, with citizens unable to read, write, or comprehend. The disparity between possessing education and lacking it is immense, and it greatly impacts personal success.

To sum up, I firmly believe that people can accomplish greater things in a society that promotes equality. This is because when individuals have equal opportunities and fair treatment, they are able to achieve more.

Sample 9:

Many research studies have highlighted a causal connection between utopian societies and personal growth, which has prompted the contention that individuals can accomplish more in more egalitarian societies. In my opinion, one can only grow when given the liberty to commit to personal causes. 

A utopian society provides its constituents with sustenance but not necessarily individual growth. This can be evidenced both economically and socially. In developed countries, there is typically a social safety net in the form of food banks, soup kitchens, or free healthcare to support less privileged citizens. Though the unemployed or people living below the poverty line can rely on these benefits for sustenance, this arguably deprives individuals of personal incentives to exert themselves, find decent employment, and in part, escape from poverty. An egalitarian society can also stifle growth in the workforce. If companies around the world embraced a hypothetical system of equal pay for all employees, such a policy would likely cause economic stagnation, stifle innovation, damage companies’ reputations, and hamper personal motivation generally. 

As far as I am concerned, success is not linear, and one can only see high levels of achievement when granted the freedom to make mistakes. A relevant example would be Rishi Sunak, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was born into humble beginnings with both parents originally immigrants from India who sought asylum in the UK for the promise of a better life. Though the UK welcomed the family as asylum seekers and provided Rishi with education opportunities, he still applied himself, studying earnestly at school, securing quality employment at investment banks, and later entering the political world. Despite an early defeat in his bid to become prime minister against Liz Truss, Rishi continued to persevere with his campaigns and political beliefs, and finally managed to ascend to the position of Prime Minister after several debates. Similar instances of success can be seen in all industries, but the overlapping commonality is the liberty to pursue one’s purposes and the freedom to fail. 

In conclusion, high achievers tend to be those who are free to pursue their personal causes despite the safety net provided by an egalitarian society. One should try to capitalise on all opportunities being presented. 

Sample 10:

In the present era, emphasis is increasing towards equality in society and achieving success. Some argue that chances of success are higher in a society where everyone has equal rights and opportunities. In contrast, others think that it would be more beneficial if people had the freedom to achieve or fail according to their results. I believe that an egalitarian society is better as every person has a chance to succeed, regardless of gender or background.

A fair society that supports talent has a chance to achieve growth much better than a biased society. If society is biased towards some cast or wealthy people, then the only people who can achieve success are the ones who belong to affluent families. However, children from wealthy families don’t need to have more talent. It depends on the dedication and hard work of individuals. Suppose each individual has given a chance, then people will put more effort into achieving something. For instance, if admission to the university depends upon how individuals perform in exams instead of their background, people would work hard to succeed.

Furthermore, if society is biased and does not allow everyone to grow, there would be no harmony among the individuals in society. Such a society will always face struggles, and nobody will feel happy in such an environment. When people in the community feel they are not given equal rights, they start protesting, which affects the peace. To cite an example, a few years ago Patel community gathered and demanded their cast to be included in the minority because they felt that their community was not getting the same opportunity as compared to other communities, which led to massive destruction in some states of Gujarat. Moreover, if people do not have equal rights, they prefer to migrate to a place where they have equal opportunities.

To conclude, having equal opportunity to succeed is a fundamental human right, and if society wants to achieve something, then it must be unbiased and preference given to deserving people, regardless of their gender or religion.

Sample 11:

It is an irrefutable fact that equality plays an essential role in societies. Some populace thinks that individuals can achieve more success in an egalitarian society. In contrast, others think that a high level of success depends on an individual’s merits, hard work and dedication. However, I firmly believe both equality and personal merits play paramount roles among people. This essay will analyze both views using examples to demonstrate points and prove arguments.

On the one hand, equality is essential in many aspects, such as men and women. In the past, only men tend to go to school or do work at the office, while nowadays, the majority of women work. Anyone has the right to have an education and work, whether poor or rich. In other words, people have to judge them on their talent, not on their social status or family status. For instance, many higher-level schools take donations in order to get admission to that school. Therefore, poor people cannot get admission because of the financial crisis. At this moment, the government should provide free or low-budget education so that everyone can get an education. Thus, equality plays a significant role in order to become successful.

On the other hand, individual achievement is equally important because, without failure, they cannot learn and achieve new things. To be more precise, failure is the key to success. If the person does not go through failure, they do not know the value of success. We learn lesions as well as mistakes through failures. Not only failure but hard work and dedication are also equally important. Everyone should get merits for their hard work. To exemplify, the IT sector’s job has different roles, and every employee has to work on the task assigned to them. If we give equal importance to each one, then the one who is giving extra will feel demotivated, affecting their performance. Another thing is that if we give equal salary to each one, it may help to maintain a good workplace environment but, it will be a dishonour for the one who has the highest knowledge compared to others. Hence, only equality in job achievement is not a good sign, and also one should get a prize as per their merits.

To sum up, promoting an egalitarian society motivates individuals to strive for personal excellence, but we should also pay attention to people’s knowledge. Hence, both are equally important to achieving achievements in their life.

Sample 12:

In recent decades, there has been considerable debate about whether or not individual achievement is greater in egalitarian or more hierarchical societies. In my opinion, despite the benefits of egalitarianism as a political principle, it should not be pursued as a social ideal.

Those who argue egalitarian societies are better for achievement point out the benefits of opportunity. The most well-known examples of this are in socialist nations in Europe like France where income disparity is less pronounced than in more capitalist countries. In such liberal countries, a person can receive a good education, secure stable employment, receive unemployment benefits in the case of an economic downturn, and support the rest of society by paying high taxes. Being part of such a community is itself a motivation for individuals to perform well at work and pursue life goals. This is especially the case as a person will not have to feel anxious about the possibility of being left behind by society at large.

I would contend that when conditions are generally equal individuals should then be permitted to compete without considerable governmental regulation. The standout example for this situation would be in the United States. Although there are more problems related to income inequality, there is also greater innovation across a variety of sectors. One cause of this is that individuals are motivated by the desire to excel and earn the financial rewards that accompany success. A person is therefore encouraged to attain their own definition of success, or they might be forced to live on the fringes of society.

In conclusion, though there is a cruel element to competition, it is the best way to encourage innovation and growth in an individual and society as a whole. Naturally, such an approach is only possible when systemic problems related to discrimination have first been eliminated.

Sample 13:

In my opinion, an egalitarian society is one in which everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities. I completely agree that people can achieve more in this kind of society.

Education is an important factor with regard to personal success in life. I believe that all children should have access to free schooling, and higher education should be either free or affordable for all those who chose to pursue a university degree. In a society without free schooling or affordable higher education, only children and young adults from wealthier families would have access to the best learning opportunities, and they would therefore be better prepared for the job market. This kind of inequality would ensure the success of some but harm the prospects of others.

I would argue that equal rights and opportunities are not in conflict with people's freedom to succeed or fail. In other words, equality does not mean that people lose their motivation to succeed, or that they are not allowed to fail. On the contrary, I believe that most people would feel more motivated to work hard and reach their potential if they thought that they lived in a fair society. Those who did not make the same effort would know that they had wasted their opportunity. Inequality, on the other hand, would be more likely to demotivate people because they would know that the odds of success were stacked in favour of those from privileged backgrounds.

In conclusion, it seems to me that there is a positive relationship between equality and personal success.

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP

Lời giải

Bạn cần đăng ký gói VIP ( giá chỉ từ 199K ) để làm bài, xem đáp án và lời giải chi tiết không giới hạn.

Nâng cấp VIP