Nowadays museums and historical sites are visited mainly bu foreign tourists rather than by locals. Why is this happening? What can be done to get locals to visit museums and historical sites more often?
Although bitter, but it must be admitted that local heritage sites and museums are mostly seen by foreign travellers than by citizens of the county. This is mainly due to lack of interest and high entrance fees. But there are several result-oriented remedies if implemented can reconcile the phenomenon to a greater extent.
Focusing on the reasons, the foremost argument for citizens to avoid visiting heritage and museums is the lack of curiosity to visit. In other words, since the vivid mythology and crucial aspects of these sites are conveyed to local people by their ancestors, local citizens are less interested. For example, according to a recent survey in northern India, although Golden Temple, a famous historical site in Punjab was visited by more than 1 million foreign travellers in a year, it attracted only a thousand local human beings. Another significant issue is that there are entry fees for almost all the museums and heritage sites. This factor resists individual to visit these well-known places.
Suggesting the solutions to how local individuals can be attracted to visit famous local historic sites and museums. One way to tackle this issue is by organizing not only various knowledge-based seminars; but also vivid theme quiz games. To be precise, conducting some activities like games and seminars will encourage local people to participate and visit renowned museums. Another valid way to solve this issue is by reducing the price of the entry ticket for local people. This will encourage them to visit and gain knowledge practically which was inherited to local individuals from their ancestors. For example, when local authorities reduced the entrance ticket price for local individuals by 20% of Taj Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World in northern India, it attracted 40% more local visitors.
In conclusion, despite the fact that local human beings avoid visiting famous heritage sites and museums, if the local authorities and desired caretakers, who are responsible to manage these sites take concreted actions, these problems can be solved to a greater extent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 272, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lems can be solved to a greater extent.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, well, for example, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 24.0651302605 75% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 41.998997996 102% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1787.0 1615.20841683 111% => OK
No of words: 339.0 315.596192385 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27138643068 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7211234197 2.80592935109 97% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 176.041082164 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522123893805 0.561755894193 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 572.4 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 2.0 2.52805611222 79% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.10420841683 238% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 0.809619238477 371% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2905162725 49.4020404114 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.133333333 106.682146367 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6 20.7667163134 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46666666667 7.06120827912 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.326341728029 0.244688304435 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111565013535 0.084324248473 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733516021343 0.0667982634062 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208027819356 0.151304729494 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0320434064127 0.056905535591 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.0946893788 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 78.4519038076 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.