Foreign visitors should pay more than local visitors for cultural and historical attractions. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Sample Response
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.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Opening structure Original: It has been a long time that Suggested revision: For many years, Why it matters: The original time clause is ungrammatical.
- 2. Plural reference Original: boost their economy Suggested revision: boost their economies Why it matters: Countries have separate economies.
- 3. Clear pricing phrase Original: the implementation of additional payment to them Suggested revision: charging them higher admission fees Why it matters: The original nominal phrase is unnatural.
- 4. Comparison form Original: more than the local tourists Suggested revision: than local tourists Why it matters: The verb charging already supplies the comparison.
- 5. Natural funding phrase Original: local government has subsidisation already Suggested revision: governments already subsidise these sites Why it matters: Subsidisation is awkward and local government needs clearer scope.
- 6. Use common term Original: excursionists Suggested revision: visitors Why it matters: Excursionist is rare and repeatedly sounds unnatural.
- 7. Fee construction Original: imposing more charge to Suggested revision: imposing higher charges on Why it matters: Charges are imposed on people.
- 8. Precise phrase Original: cultural tourism improvement Suggested revision: cultural attractions Why it matters: The original phrase is vague and unnatural.
- 9. Formal number Original: one of the new 7 wonders Suggested revision: one of the New Seven Wonders Why it matters: Spell out the number and treat the title consistently.
- 10. Avoid unintended meaning Original: contributed too much money already Suggested revision: already contribute substantial revenue Why it matters: Too much implies an undesirable excess.
- 11. Uncountable noun Original: a lot of contributions Suggested revision: a substantial contribution Why it matters: Contribution to revenue is better expressed as a singular amount.
- 12. Possessive apostrophe Original: the countries historical attractions Suggested revision: the country's historical attractions Why it matters: The singular possessive requires an apostrophe.
Suggested Rewrites
- It has been a long time that For many years,
- boost their economy boost their economies
- the implementation of additional payment to them charging them higher admission fees
- more than the local tourists than local tourists
- local government has subsidisation already governments already subsidise these sites
- excursionists visitors
Why this response received Band 6.0
The essay maintains a clear disagreement and offers two relevant reasons, supported by a concrete Philippine example. However, the logic is not always convincing: government subsidy and airport tax do not by themselves prove that equal attraction fees are fair, and the discussion becomes narrowly national rather than addressing the principle broadly. Strengthen the causal reasoning, use accurate formal vocabulary, and correct frequent noun and clause errors.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
The position is clear and relevant reasons are supplied, but their connection to equal pricing is only partly developed.
Explain why equal access or visitor spending is a fairer basis than nationality, and address a possible funding counterargument.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument has a recognisable sequence, but repetitive conclusions and a single-block structure limit progression.
Use distinct introduction, two body paragraphs, and conclusion, with each paragraph proving one reason.
Lexical Resource
Some topic vocabulary is used, but inaccurate collocations and overuse of excursionist impair naturalness.
Use visitors or tourists consistently and prefer precise phrases such as higher admission fee and public funding.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Frequent article, plural, possessive, agreement, and clause errors are noticeable throughout.
Edit noun phrases carefully and ensure each conclusion contains a complete parallel verb structure.