高分范文 | 3月21日雅思笔试写作真题全解析

四季读书网 2026-03-24 10:14:46 2 0

点击左上角星标不错过关键内容

3月21日大作文原题：

Some people say that historical sites ( e.g. pyramids ) should be completely closed to the public. Others say it is important to allow people to visit these sites.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

题目解读

这道题是雅思写作大作文中非常典型的“社会/文化类”话题，具体涉及 “文化遗产保护与旅游开发的矛盾”。这题属于高频话题，类似的变体还有：

博物馆该不该收费？
古建筑是应该保护还是被现代建筑取代？
是否应该限制游客人数？

高分范文

The question of whether historical sites should be open to the public has sparked considerable debate. While some argue for complete closure to preserve these treasures, I believe that public access should be maintained, as it brings economic benefits and fosters a sense of national identity, provided that appropriate management measures are in place.

译文：历史遗迹是否应对公众开放这一问题引发了广泛争议。尽管有人主张完全关闭以保护这些珍贵遗产，但我认为应当保留公众开放权，因为这能带来经济效益，并培养民族认同感，前提是落实完善的管理措施。

Proponents of open access often highlight the substantial economic gains generated by tourism. Sites such as the pyramids in Egypt or those in Central America attract a large number of international visitors, whose spending on accommodation, dining, and local services injects vital revenue into surrounding communities. This financial boost can be particularly transformative for economically disadvantaged regions, enabling infrastructure development and improving the well-being of local residents.

译文：支持开放参观的支持者通常强调旅游业带来的巨大经济效益。埃及金字塔或中美洲的历史遗迹会吸引大量国际游客，他们在住宿、餐饮及本地服务上的消费为周边社区注入重要收入。这种经济提振对经济欠发达地区尤为关键，能推动基础设施建设，改善当地居民的生活质量。

On the other hand, those who advocate for restricting access tend to emphasise preservation and scientific research. Historical sites are often fragile; the constant flow of visitors can accelerate physical deterioration through humidity, carbon dioxide, or even accidental damage. Furthermore, many sites, such as the pyramids, still hold unanswered questions for archaeologists and engineers. Allowing unrestricted access may jeopardise the very conditions that enable scientific discovery, potentially causing irreparable loss to humanity.

译文：另一方面，主张限制参观的人往往强调保护与科学研究。历史遗迹通常十分脆弱，源源不断的游客会因湿度、二氧化碳甚至意外损坏而加速其物理损耗。此外，金字塔等诸多遗迹仍留给考古学家和工程师诸多未解之谜。无限制开放可能会破坏科学研究的必要条件，给人类造成无法弥补的损失。

In my view, while the preservation concerns are valid, closing historical sites entirely is an overly simplistic solution. A more balanced approach—such as limiting visitor numbers, introducing timed entry, and using virtual reality technologies—can protect these sites while still allowing public engagement. Moreover, open access plays a crucial role in strengthening national identity. For citizens, visiting their country’s historical landmarks cultivates a deeper understanding of their shared heritage and fosters a collective sense of belonging. This connection to the past can inspire greater social cohesion and a stronger commitment to the nation’s future.

译文：在我看来，尽管保护方面的担忧是合理的，但完全关闭历史遗迹是一种过于简单化的解决方式。更均衡的方案—— 例如限制游客数量、实行分时入场、运用虚拟现实技术—— 既能保护遗迹，又能保障公众参与。此外，开放参观对增强民族认同感起着关键作用。对公民而言，游览本国历史地标能加深对共同文化遗产的理解，培养集体归属感。这种与历史的联结能促进更强的社会凝聚力，提升对国家未来的责任感。

In conclusion, although there are legitimate reasons to restrict public access to historical sites for preservation purposes, I believe that with careful management, the benefits of allowing public visitation—both economic and cultural—far outweigh the drawbacks.

译文：总之，尽管出于保护目的限制历史遗迹的公众开放有合理依据，但我认为，只要进行精细化管理，允许公众参观带来的经济与文化效益，远大于其弊端。

评分标准角度分析

Task Response（题目回应）：双方观点讨论均衡，补充了文物保护层面的核心理由，任务完成度高。例：第三段明确提出“the constant flow of visitors can accelerate physical deterioration through humidity, carbon dioxide, or even accidental damage”，有效回应了“完全关闭”一方的核心关切。
Coherence & Cohesion（连贯与衔接）：段落结构清晰，衔接手段使用得当，逻辑推进顺畅。例：第三段以“On the other hand, those who advocate for restricting access tend to emphasise preservation and scientific research”自然过渡到反方观点，承转明确。
Grammatical Range & Accuracy（语法范围与准确性）：句式结构多样，包含定语从句、让步状语从句等，且使用准确。例：第四段“A more balanced approach—such as limiting visitor numbers, introducing timed entry, and using virtual reality technologies—can protect these sites while still allowing public engagement”中，破折号插入结构与“while + 现在分词”并用，句式丰富且语法正确。
Lexical Resource（词汇资源）：词汇多样性良好，搭配准确，无口语化表达。例：文中使用“substantial economic gains”“physical deterioration”“irreparable loss”“social cohesion”等表达，准确且符合学术语境。