The increasing availability of low-cost airlines now lets people travel around the world. Some feel this is a positive development while others think it is negative overall. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.
In an era characterized by innovations in domains like tourism and aviation, it is now possible to travel around the world at relatively low prices with the advent of low-cost airlines. However, this has sparked a debate, fueled by public attention. Some stress that this has resulted in positive advancement, while others propose an opposite view. While acknowledging the positive sides of this case, I believe it is a negative development for some reasons.
The advocates of the former view stress the opportunities for low-income families to support their stance. Although wealthy and noble people were able to travel regularly, it is now also possible for the people with limited a budget. Such an equitable phenomenon, in turn, leads to social equality, paving the way for a more balanced life. For example, the cost of a domestic flight from Bukhara to Tashkent has lowered to $7, which cuts commuting costs and saves time.
In my opinion, the adverse outcomes are far too great to ignore. One of them is overtourism, fueled by cheaper flights. A case in Spain has garnered international attention, where the flock of tourists is increasing. If responsible officials do not take proactive measures, the ecological consequences are likely to be inevitable, with unprecedented results yet to surface. The convenience offered by airlines is providing for cheaper prices would lead to an array of problematic issues like overtourism.
Furthermore, as domestic and international flights are possible at ease, housing is a problem of gigantic proportions. This is because house rentals would rise due to the transient stay of tourists. This creates housing challenges for economically deprived locals, who rely on house rentals as a last resort to sustain a livelihood. This case has also been seen in Spain, with public backlash, coupled with people saying – ‘selfieseeker tourists should go’. In this regard, this posed a strain on governing bodies, with locals calling for formal actions. Fortunately, officials are now considering the preventative measures – tax policy – to address this problem.
In conclusion, having considered both sides of this case, I came to the conclusion that while cheaper airlines increase the opportunities for low-income families, the adverse outcomes are inevitable, such as overtourism and housing problems in cities like Spain. Responsible officials should act swiftly to avert the consequences of tourist influx.
The essay is logically organized and ideas are connected well. The introduction and conclusion are clear and relevant. However, there are a few instances where the flow of ideas could be improved.
Suggestions
- Try to use a wider range of linking words to connect your ideas more effectively.
- Ensure that your examples directly support your arguments.
The essay uses a wide range of vocabulary and there is evidence of less common and idiomatic language. However, there are a few instances of awkward or incorrect word choice.
The essay uses a wide range of complex structures. There are a few minor errors, but they do not impede communication.
The essay addresses the task effectively, presenting a clear position throughout. Both sides of the argument are discussed in detail and supported with relevant examples. However, the conclusion could be more comprehensive. The essay could also benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the potential long-term effects of the proposed solution.
Suggestions
- Consider summarizing the main points made in the essay to provide a more comprehensive conclusion.
- Provide more evidence and in-depth discussion of the potential long-term effects of the proposed solution.