Tourism is an excellent way to develop a country, but it can also cause harm.

How can countries

It is irrefutable that tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world. In fact
many countries rely on the tourist dollar for their development. This has also led to damage of the
natural environment and at many places the tourist places have been so much littered that they have
ceased being a tourist attraction any more. In a way tourism is killing tourism. In the following
paragraphs, I shall discuss ways in which countries can ensure sustainable tourism.

The first step towards sustainable tourism would be that tourists benefit the local residents of the
host country rather than the owners of the five star hotels where they normally stay. The
governments and tourist companies could educate the local residents to make a part of their homes
as lodges for the tourists. This way the tourists could stay as paying guests and the local people
could earn. This would be a win-win situation for both – the tourist and the locals and there would
be more chances of culture exchange.

Another cause of concern which goes against tourism is that tourists litter the place by throwing
plastic bottles and wrappers of eatables here and there. For this the governments could ensure that
dust bins are placed at regular intervals and are also evacuated regularly. Neat and clean rest-rooms
should be provided for the convenience of the tourists. The government should also limit the
number of tourists according to the capacity of the tourist place.

Furthermore, it is sometimes the case that tourists don’t respect the local culture and therefore the
local people do not welcome them. This can be taken care of by the tour guides and tour operating
countries to educate the tourists about the important and sensitive parts of the local customs. For
example, when tourists visit religious places in India, the tour guides could tell them to take off
their shoes outside.

Then, some degree of pollution is inevitable as tourists travel by air, but while travelling locally,
the tourist could use a non polluting source such as a rickshaw. They could even opt for an
elephant ride instead of an automobile where available. This would ensure that even the common
man would welcome them with open arms. After all, the development of a country includes better
standards of living for the common man.

Finally, it is in the hands of the tourist to promote eco-tourism and take some responsibility of the
environment. It has been well said that, ‘a good tourist is one who takes away nothing but
photographs and leaves behind nothing but footprints’.

Summing up, there is a negative side of tourism but it can be checked with some simple steps taken
by the governments, tour companies and guides, the local people and the tourist himself.

Plan followed
Intro: In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss ways in which countries can ensure sustainable
tourism.

Para 1: first step - tourists should benefit the local residents of the host country rather than the
owners of the five star hotels where they normally stay

Para 2: More steps

-       trash cans at regular intervals

-       Neat and clean rest-rooms should be provided for the convenience of the tourists

-       government should also limit the number of tourists according to the capacity of the tourist
place

Para 3: the tour guides can guide tourists about the culture and tradition of the place

Conclusion: there is a negative side of tourism but it can be checked with some simple steps taken
by the governments, tour companies and guides, the local people and the tourist himself

Air travel can only benefit the richest people in the world. Ordinary people can get no advantage
with the development of air travel. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

I disagree with the statement that air travel has advantages only for the wealthiest people and there
are no benefits for the vast majority of the middle and lower class people. I shall put forth my
arguments to support my views in the following essay.

There is no doubt that a few years ago, air travel was only for the upper strata of society. However,
nowadays, most of the airline companies are offering economy class tickets which are affordable
by the common man. On top of that, they have schemes by which if one buys a ticket well in
advance then the cost of ticket is even lower. So, the given statement is not justified in today’s
scenario.

Even if we go with the notion that only the rich can travel by air, then also the ordinary man is
benefitted in various ways. When rich tourists come to visit a place, they spend a lot in hotels,
tourist places and also in the shopping centres from where they buy souvenirs. Many people are
employed in the tourism industry. Even if they cannot travel themselves, their source of income is
directly or indirectly dependent on these tourists who travel by air. For example, in India, during
the tourist season, many guides, rickshaw wallas and taxi drivers earn enough to last them a whole
year.
Moreover, it is a well known fact that, as tourists come, the governments spend on infrastructure
such as stadiums roads and hotels. All these are used by the common man. Finally, the common
man gets opportunity for culture exchange even without himself travelling by air. When other
people come he learns about their culture and gives them the good points of his culture.

Summing up, air travel benefits all people and not just the most affluent.

Plan followed

Intro: Disagree

Para 1: given statement is not justified in today’s scenario.

Para 2: ordinary man is benefitted in various ways

Para 3: More advantages for the common man

Conclusion: air travel benefits all people and not just the most affluent.

Some people think that it is necessary to travel abroad to learn about other countries, while other
people think that it is not necessary to travel abroad because all the information can be seen on TV
and the Internet. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

It is irrefutable that nowadays, because of technology, arm-chair tourism through which we can see
all the information on television and the internet, has gained popularity. However, I disagree, that
travelling abroad will no longer be needed. In fact, I believe that the popularity of foreign travel
will grow even further due to publicity these places get because of TV and the internet.

First of all, computers can never replace real places. No matter how real and vivid computer
images are, they are only images and can never be likened to the historical objects and natural
wonders that we see in real or even might be allowed to touch with our fingertips. The difference
can be compared to seeing the picture of a mango rather than actually eating it.

Secondly, visiting other countries is a rewarding experience in many respects. For one thing, it is a
good exercise. When we make the trip to a foreign country then we visit the places of interest
there, we get some exercise which does a lot of good to our health. We generally go with family
and friends and enjoy a lot. We also learn about the culture and tradition of the place. All this
broadens our horizons which can never be done by the passive activity of seeing something on the
computer screen. At the same time we also get a chance to spread the good points of our own
culture also.
Finally, I believe that after seeing these countries on TV or the internet, our craving to actually see
these increases even more and so we make efforts to go and see these places. This can be proved
by the overwhelming number of tourists to these places that has been increasing year after year. At
certain times, especially when it is temporarily impossible for us to visit other countries in person,
we can get a rough picture of what those countries are like. However, what we see from a computer
screen is, after all, not exactly the same as what we see and feel with our own eyes on site.

In conclusion, arm-chair tourism is there today but international travel will still be needed.

Plan followed

Intro: Disagree

Para 1: computers can never replace real places.

Para 2: visiting other countries is a rewarding experience in many respects

Para 3: I believe that after seeing these countries on TV or the internet, our craving to actually see
these increases even more and so we make efforts to go and see these places.

Conclusion: arm-chair tourism is there today but international travel will still be needed.

International travel makes people prejudiced rather than broad-minded. What are its causes and
what measures can be taken to solve this problem?

It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. Unfortunately,

The most important reason why some are opposed to international tourism is that tourists may
unknowingly show disrespect for local culture. For instance, we generally cover our heads in a
religious place. A tourist may not do so or take his shoes inside a temple. This may offend the local
people. Sometimes, youngsters may be attracted towards the western culture which the tourists
bring with them and many may find this as a threat to the local culture.

Moreover, the tourist dollar may not be helping the local people. We all know that tourists stay in
five star hotels and enjoy the best facilities. They may be taking two showers a day where as the
local people may not have enough water to drink. This has been the case in Shimla which is a very
popular hill station in Himachal Pradesh India. On top of that, when tourists buy souvenirs from
local artisans, they bargain a lot. The poor artisans, who look up to tourists for their livelihood, end
up earning the bare minimum. Finally, tourism creates pollution, which helps nobody. We are all
suffering the consequences of global warming.

The solutions are not simple. We cannot discourage tourism. It is the backbone of many economies
of the world. First of all, the tour operators should take the onus of guiding the tourists about the
main things of local culture. Secondly, the tourists should stay with locals as paying guests. This
would be a win-win situation for both. Local people would earn and the tourist would taste the
local culture. Finally, ecotourism should be promoted. For example, if an elephant ride is possible,
the tourist should avoid using car. After all a good tourist is one – who takes away nothing but
photographs and leaves behind nothing but footprints.

Summing up, international tourism does have a downside to it but many steps can be taken to
lessen the negative effects.

Plan followed

Intro: This essay shall discuss why International tourism makes people prejudiced and suggest
solutions

Para 1: Reasons

-       Tourists don’t respect local culture

-       People may find it a threat to local culture

Para 2: More reasons

-       Tourists don’t help local people

-       pollution

Para 3: solutions

Conclusion: international tourism does have a downside to it but many steps can be taken to lessen
the negative effects

Some people think the cheap air flight gives ordinary people more freedom. However, others think
the cheap air flight should be banned because it pollutes the air and brings many other problems.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.

In today's world, we are now in a position to enjoy cheaper air flights than in the past. However,
there is an argument that they should be banned due to the levels of pollution they generate. Those
in favour of cheap air flight say it is advantageous in terms of freedom and the opportunities to
learn from other countries. In this essay I shall examine both sides of this issue and finally give my
opinion. 
 

Cheap air flight can be beneficial in many ways. One of them is the opportunities to go overseas.
Earlier, only the affluent could afford it, but now it is within the pocket of the ordinary man. Some
of the discounted tickets are fairly cheap and flying abroad is no longer a dream for many. This has
definitely decreased the gap between the rich and the poor. What is more, small businesses have
prospered because of the ease of travel because of these flights.

In addition to this, cheap air flight enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent
of cheap air fare makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the
purpose of the trip. Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and
have a better understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances
cultural communications between countries.

The argument that cheap flight should be banned is also justified to some extent. It is generally
known that aeroplanes consume a vast amount of oil and the gas emission generated by an airplane
is enormous. If cheap air tickets are not controlled, the environmental impacts would only get
worse in the long run. Besides, cheap air tickets at times are extremely disturbing in terms of
certain conditions that go along with them. One problem is that the date and time cannot be
changed once purchased. As a result, many people find it inconvenient if they are to reschedule due
to emergency.

Summing up, the issue of cheap air fares is complex and there is no easy solution as both sides
have merits. However, I am convinced that giving people the freedom to travel is essential, but at
the same time people should be made aware of avoiding un-necessary travel. Banning such flights
is not the answer.

Plan followed

Intro: Discuss essay intro

Para 1: Benefits of cheap air flights

-       Even the poor can afford – decreased the rich-poor gap

Para 2: More advantages of cheap flights

Para 3: Disadvantages of cheap air flights

-       Pollution

-       No refund policy

Conclusion: Cheap flights have many advantages. Banning them is not the answer.
Many developing countries are currently expanding their tourist industries. Why is this the case? Is
it a positive development?

It is irrefutable that international tourism has taken mammoth dimensions. In fact it has become the
backbone of many economies of the world. No wonder many developing countries are opening
their doors to tourists. In my opinion, it is both, a positive as well as a negative development.

International tourism can have many benefits for individuals and that is precisely why countries are
opening their doors for tourists. The most important benefit is that tourism provides regular
employment for many local people who might otherwise be unemployed. They can find work in
restaurants or hotels, or with tourist agencies as guides or drivers, for example, and earn regular
wages. This, in turn, means that they may be able to save money and improve their standard of
living. The second advantage is that tourists spend money in the country and this allows local
businesses such as restaurants, bars and taxi companies to flourish. In turn, other businesses, food
suppliers or petrol stations, for instance, may be established in order to provide services to support
the companies which cater for tourists. In other words, the whole economy of the region develops.

A third benefit is that in order for tourists to be able to visit remote areas, roads, airports and hotels
have to be built and local people also benefit by being able to use these new facilities. Furthermore,
when communications improve, it becomes possible for other industries to move into the area,
bringing with them more employment opportunities and increased prosperity. A final reason why
countries promote tourism is that visitors from outside bring fresh ideas and different ways of
doing things to the local community. Consequently, local people may learn from tourists.
Likewise, visitors learn about the local people and culture, and return home with a deeper
understanding of the host country.

On the other hand, that there are some problems associated with international tourism. Firstly, there
is the increasing crime rate. Some locals see tourists as easy prey because, not only are they in
unfamiliar territory and therefore less able to take care of themselves, but also they carry visible
items of wealth, such as cameras and jewellery which can be disposed of quickly for a profit.
Another major problem is health. With greater mobility comes greater danger of spreading
contagious diseases around the world. Also to be considered is the natural environment, which can
be seriously threatened by too many visitors. Australia's Great Barrier Reef, for example, is in
danger of being destroyed by tourists and there are plans to restrict visitors to some of the more
delicate coral reefs. Air pollution is also caused by too many air flights.

Summing up, international tourism has many advantages because of which the countries are
expanding their tourist industries. This situation is definitely a positive development.

Plan followed

Intro: it is both, a positive as well as a negative development.

Para 2: More advantages of tourism

Para 3: Disadvantages of tourism

Conclusion: Advantages of tourism outweigh the disadvantages

Some people believe that air travel should be restricted because it causes serious pollution and uses
up the world's fuel resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is irrefutable that air travel causes pollution and uses a lot of fuel, bit I disagree that air travel
should be restricted. Restricting air travel would solve some problems but would lead to many
other problems.

At a time when people all over the world worry about the decreasing level of fossil fuels and global
warming, it is right to take action to save the planet earth. However, to simply discourage flights is
not the answer. International tourism has become the backbone of many economies of the world.
Many countries are earning from tourism. Many people are employed in this industry. Many
businesses like hotels and leisure centres are dependent on tourists. So, if we discourage
international tourism, it would create new and even worse problems. Many businesses would go
broke and many people would be without jobs.

Air flight also enables intercultural exchanges between countries. The advent of cheap air fare
makes it possible for people the world over to travel regularly, regardless of the purpose of the trip.
Therefore, people have the opportunities to learn from different cultures and have a better
understanding of countries they used to be unfamiliar with. This, in turn, enhances cultural
communications between countries.

It is true that air travel consumes oil, but other modes of transportation are also causing pollution
and using fuel. Discouraging private cars and encouraging people to use public transport could help
save the environmental resources in a big way. Therefore it would be a very unpractical decision to
restrict air travel at the cost of people’s mobility, or worse, at the cost of the development of the
economy. Technology could also be used to produce more environmentally friendly and fuel
efficient engines.

Summing up, instead of restricting air travel, we should develop more efficient engine that
produces more energy output with less fuel and fewer major air pollutants. We should also focus
on limiting private vehicles and encouraging public transport.

Plan followed
Intro: Disagree

Para 1: Why we should not discourage flights

-       We need tourism – give some advantages of tourism

Para 2: More advantages of tourism

Para 3: Talk about other things causing pollution and using fuel – cars – talk about discouraging
cars

-       Talk about how technology can help

Conclusion: Reiterate opinion

Some people think that people moving to a new country should accept new culture in the foreign
country rather than living as a separate minority group with different lifestyle. Do you agree or
disagree?

Today, with the passage of time each and every country is on the path of development, and with
this development there is a growing trend of visiting different places in different countries. It is a
highly debated issue whether immigrants should do and behave as the people of the host country or
should they stick to their traditional lifestyle and live as a separate minority. It is necessary to look
into pros and cons of both situations before forming an opinion.

There are many benefits of adopting host countries customs. Firstly, it decreases chances of
misunderstanding and embarrassment. For e.g. in the UK it is offensive to ask about pay to anyone,
which is common in India. Secondly, a nation’s customs and traditions are fascinating and offer a
deep insight into that country. People move to other countries to broaden their horizon. So, if
immigrants copy the customs of host country, they learn more about them and that too in an
interesting way. Finally, visitors establish a rapport with local people because people feel respected
when their customs are understood and imitated. They become a member of the host country and
so they don’t suffer any culture shock.

On the other hand there are many advantages of making a minority group. If a person is from a
country with strong and old traditions, it will be difficult for him to adapt to the new customs. He
can’t break the old customs such as food habits and wearing certain types of clothes. In such cases
if he retains his old customs and lives with his own community as a separate minority, he won’t
suffer from homesickness.

On balance, I feel that someone who is moving to another country should respect the customs,
culture, traditions etc. of that country. This is necessary because a newcomer is like a guest in
someone else's home. So he is expected to follow the rules of that country. However, it should not
be obligatory for him to follow those customs and change himself altogether. As time passes and
he gets to know the hosts better then he can decide if he wants to adopt any custom or stick to his
own. After all being a cosmopolitan is the need of the hour.

Summing up, it is a matter of personal choice. Mutual understanding between both the visitor and
the host is necessary to maintain harmony. A cosmopolitan society in which everyone is tolerant of
each other’s customs and traditions is the need of the day. After all, today, we are part of a small
global village and not a big planet Earth.

Plan followed

Intro: It is necessary to look into pros and cons of both situations before forming an opinion.

Para 1: benefits of adopting host countries customs

Para 2: advantages of making a minority group

Para 3: Own view

Conclusion: Personal choice. Mutual understanding between both the visitor and the host is
necessary to maintain harmony

Some people think that cultural traditions may be destroyed when they are used as money-making
attractions aimed at tourists. Others believe it is the only way to save these traditions. Discuss on
both sides and give your opinion.

It is irrefutable that cultural traditions attract tourists from all over the world and develop local
economy. Some individuals are of the opinion that these may be destroyed if they are modified to
attract tourists. Others, however, hold the view that if we don’t use them for tourism, they will die.
In the following paragraphs, I shall discuss both sides of the argument.

We have to make these cultural traditions alluring for tourists because we need tourists. Firstly,
tourism boosts our economy and secondly we get a chance to spread our culture to different
countries. If our artists and artisans do not earn money from their art, which depicts our culture and
tradition, then this art will die off and we’ll only be the losers.

Tourism is the backbone of any country’s economy and every country does their effort to attract
tourists. Many people depend on tourism for their livelihood. People in the food industry, hotel
industry and transport industry depend on tourism. Presentation is very important to attract visitors
and to present nicely, some change is inevitable.
On the other hand, when cultural traditions are used as money-making attractions, they lose their
original features. Sometimes it makes cultural traditions disappear altogether. However, I believe
that culture and tradition are deep rooted and minor superficial changes cannot harm them in any
way. Change is the law of nature and all we should look into is that the changes are made with
caution to retain the inherent elements of culture.

Summing up, to save cultural traditions we need to make some changes to make them alluring to
the tourist of today. If we don’t do so we’ll lose our cultural traditions altogether and we’ll lose our
tourists also.

Plan followed

Intro: Discuss essay intro

Para 1: Why we should use cultural attractions for making money

-       We need tourists

-       If our artists and artisans do not earn money from their art then this art will die off

Para 2: More advantages of tourism

Para 3: Disadvantages of using cultural attractions as money making ventures

-       they lose their original features

Conclusion: to save cultural traditions we need to make some changes to make them

The traditional life style of local people in developing countries is attracting and increasing the
number of tourists to the countries which has the effect of preventing local people changing to
modern ways. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Recent years have witnessed a marked interest in international tourism and the traditional lifestyles
of people in the developing countries are acting as magnets to the tourists. However, I disagree that
this is deterring the local people to change their customs and traditions and adopt modern ways of
life. A number of arguments support my opinion.

The most convincing argument to support this view is that the local people that come in contact
with these tourists may develop a sort of copying behaviour, as they want to live and behave in the
same way. This is because many tourists come from societies with different consumption patterns
and lifestyles which may seem more attractive to the locals especially in the less developed
countries. To add to it, tourism can force the local people to alter their cultures such as religious
rituals and festivals to conform to tourist expectations which may take them away from their
traditional lifestyles.
 

Furthermore, tourists want souvenirs, arts, crafts, and cultural things, and in many tourist
destinations, craftsmen have responded to the growing demand, and have made changes in design
of their products to bring them more in line with the new customers' tastes. Another important
reason why local people are not interested in sticking to their traditional lifestyles is that they feel
they are being exploited to attract tourism whereas the major chunk of profits goes to those who
have the modern lifestyles. This is because, in developing countries, many jobs occupied by local
people in the tourist industry are at a lower level, such as housemaids, waiters, gardeners and other
practical work, while higher-paying and more prestigious managerial jobs go to foreigners or
urbanized nationals.

A final reason to disagree with the given statement is that most tourists just want a glimpse of new
things and are mainly looking for familiar things in unfamiliar surroundings such as fast food
outlets and well known hotel chains. When such places are made for the tourists, the local people
also use them and eventually a transition to the modern lifestyle occurs.

To summarise, I disagree with the view that tourism is motivating people to retain their culture and
tradition. In fact tourism thrusts traditional communities into the modern world, threatening their
distinct lifestyles and cultural products.

The traditional life style of local people in developing countries is attracting and increasing the
number of tourists to the countries which has the effect of preventing local people changing to
modern ways. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Recent years have witnessed a marked interest in international tourism and the traditional lifestyles
of people in the developing countries are acting as magnets to the tourists. I firmly believe that this
is deterring the local people to change their customs and traditions and adopt modern ways of life.
A number of arguments support my opinion.

The most convincing argument to support this view is that the presence of visitors who continually
praise the host culture gives people a kind of confidence and pride in their traditions, and makes
them truly believe that their culture is glorious and thus worthy of this praise and therefore justly
admired. This realization removes any possibility in the people's mind that their lifestyle was in
any way inferior to that of advanced nations, and plays an important role in retaining their lifestyle
in general. For example, when tribal people of Rajasthan, India are appreciated for their clothing
style and their dances such as the ‘Snake Charmer’s Dance’, they put even more effort to practice
those art forms and present them to the tourists.

 
Secondly, it is a well known fact that nothing destroys culture faster than poverty. This poverty of
the tribal people is alleviated when the tourists visit them for what they are. They come to realise
and accept the fact that their bread and butter will be lost if they change to modern lifestyles and
therefore they stick to their culture and traditions. Today, even in this era of globalisation, it is
irrefutable that ‘culture’ sells. When there is recession all around and people in the modern world
are finding it difficult to make both ends meet, these people are just living their life and the tourist
dollar is flowing in. An interesting example where people are retaining to their old ways of life
even in the developed country such as the USA can be seen in the Amish village Philadelphia. It is
a very popular tourist destination and people go there to see how those people are living without
what are considered the basic necessities of modern life.

The final reason for people retaining their traditional life style is that the facilities developed for
tourists benefits them eventually and they know very well that if the inflow of tourists stops then
government will not invest in those areas and they will be the losers in the long run. Benefits can
include upgraded infrastructure, health and transport improvements, new sport and recreational
facilities, restaurants, and public spaces as well as an influx of better-quality commodities and
food.

To summarise, I side with the view that tourism is motivating people to retain their culture and
tradition and not be lured into following the modern ways of life.