The extent to
which governments should provide egalitarian opportunity for public services to
its citizens has long been a controversial issue. Although some people argue
that imposing entrance fees for museums has its own benefits, my view is that it
is outweighed by its drawbacks.
It is
arguable that collecting admission fees contributes to advantageous outcome for
the following reasons. Firstly, the raised funds can be re-invested in museums,
meaning that visitors will experience better exhibitions with improved
facilities and more diverse and higher quality of collections. Secondly, overall
quality of museum will be maintained as only serious guests visit museums. In
other words, those who are willing to pay the fee take their trip seriously,
and try to spend their time on appreciating learning resources only.
Nevertheless,
this will contribute to more adverse consequences. Screening visitors by their
economic condition means some of them are deprived of the opportunity for
education. This is due to the fact that main users of museums are students<(is this true for all?), who
are yet to be independent in terms of financial capability, hence they need
support from their parents for the entrance. Consequently, inflicting financial
burden on youngsters means that problem of economic social division are passed
onto the next generation. <(too broad and not too persuasive)
In
conclusion, despite the merits that charging entrance fees bring in, I believe
the disadvantages will lead to far more serious consequences, so this matter
should be approached in a careful manner by policymakers.
Score: 7
Comment: 글자수가 250 미만이면 패널티가 적용이 될 수 있습니다. 또한 disadvantage에 대한 내용이 크게 persuasive하거나 논리적으로 보이지 않습니다. entrance fee를 못내서 그 경제가 다음 generation까직 넘어간다는 것은 too broad 해보입니다. 조금 더 persuasive한 reasoning을 해주시면 좋을 것 같습니다. 예를 들어 꼭 학생이 아니여도 financially poor이면은 입장이 불가능해서 less educated될 확률이 높아집니다. 그렇기 때문에 자신의 나라의 역사 마저 잘 모르는 happening이 있을 수 있습니다. 또한 entrance fee가 있을수록 방문하는 사람들 수 도 낮을 수 가 있습니다. 수고 하셨습니다.