Museums and historical sites should be free for everyone to enter.
A full IELTS Writing Task 2 answer to this question, with a paragraph plan, ideas you can use, and the vocabulary that fits this topic.
The question
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Museums and historical sites should be free for everyone to enter.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
How to read this question
A short statement like this looks easy and is therefore dangerous: there is very little in it to analyse, so weak answers drift into general praise of museums. The two words that give you an argument are "everyone" and "free". Free to the visitor is not free to provide, so the real question is who pays instead — and "everyone" invites you to ask whether universal free entry actually helps the people it is meant to help.
Paragraph plan
Introduction — Paraphrase, then agree with the principle but redirect: the question is who funds it, and universal free entry is not the most effective way to widen access.
Body 1 — The case for free entry — cost is a genuine barrier, and the benefit of these institutions is public rather than private.
Body 2 — The complication — free entry is funded by taxes paid by everyone but used disproportionately by the already-educated, and unfunded free entry degrades the collection.
Conclusion — Support free entry to permanent collections, funded properly, with charges for temporary exhibitions.
Model essay
Band 8.5–9.0 model essay
332 words
According to some, admission to museums and historical sites should be entirely free of charge for all visitors. In my view, while free access would considerably broaden cultural participation, complete removal of entrance fees is only sustainable if governments commit to compensating for the resulting loss of revenue.
To begin, eliminating admission fees would substantially widen access to cultural and historical education, particularly for lower-income families who might otherwise be deterred by cost. To clarify, when a family must choose between an entrance fee and other essential expenses, cultural visits are often the first to be sacrificed. Removing this barrier would allow more children to engage with their national heritage, fostering a stronger sense of cultural identity and encouraging lifelong interest in the arts and history, benefits that extend well beyond the individual visitor to society as a whole. Moreover, free entry can encourage repeat visits, allowing families to explore exhibitions gradually rather than feeling pressured to absorb everything during a single, costly trip.
Nevertheless, museums and historical sites rely heavily on admission revenue to fund maintenance, staffing, and the preservation of fragile artefacts. Without an alternative funding mechanism, abolishing entrance fees could compromise the very institutions such a policy intends to promote, leading to deteriorating exhibits or reduced operating hours. For instance, some smaller institutions might be forced to reduce opening hours, delay essential restoration work, or even close permanently, ultimately depriving the public of the very access the policy sought to expand. Therefore, free access should be underpinned by consistent government subsidies or dedicated cultural budgets, ensuring that institutions can maintain their collections without depending solely on visitor payments. Such funding could, for example, be drawn from a small proportion of general taxation, spreading the cost broadly across society rather than concentrating it on visitors alone.
To conclude, I largely agree that museums and historical sites should be free to encourage broader cultural engagement, but this policy is only viable when governments provide sufficient alternative funding to sustain these institutions.
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to read the rest of this essay and unlock every model on the site.
This is an opinion (agree / disagree) question. The essay above shows you what a strong answer looks like when it is finished. What it cannot show you is how to get there from a blank page in forty minutes.
That is what our Writing Study Library is for: the structure we teach for this exact question type, the paragraph pattern that goes with it, and the sentence openers for each stage — so the essay is planned before you start writing rather than assembled as you go.
Introduction: Paraphrase the claim that museums and historical sites should be free, agreeing conditionally provided governments compensate institutions for the lost admission revenue.
Body 1: Argue free entry widens access for lower-income families, strengthens engagement with national heritage and cultural identity, and encourages repeat, unhurried visits.
Body 2: Argue museums depend on admission revenue for maintenance and preservation, so abolishing fees without alternative funding, such as taxation-based subsidies, risks deteriorating exhibits or permanent closures.
Conclusion: Restate agreement that free entry is good policy, but only viable when governments provide sufficient alternative funding to sustain the institutions.
Word or phrase
Meaning
Used in a sentence
admission fees
charges paid to enter a place
eliminating admission fees would substantially widen access to cultural and historical education
deterred
discouraged from doing something
lower-income families who might otherwise be deterred by cost
heritage
valued cultural traditions and objects passed down through generations
allow more children to engage with their national heritage
artefacts
objects made by humans, typically of historical or cultural interest
the preservation of fragile artefacts
abolishing
formally putting an end to a practice
abolishing entrance fees could compromise the very institutions such a policy intends to promote
underpinned
supported or formed the basis of something
free access should be underpinned by consistent government subsidies
subsidies
sums of money granted to support an activity
underpinned by consistent government subsidies or dedicated cultural budgets
sustain
to keep something going over time
governments provide sufficient alternative funding to sustain these institutions
Created by a Band 8.5–9.0 IELTS Writing achiever — Premium. Sign up free to see the ideas and vocabulary for this topic and unlock every model on the site.
Answers checked here may be published on this page, without your name, to help other learners. Nothing else about you is stored.
Common questions
Short statements like this feel easier — are they?
They are usually harder. A short statement gives you less to analyse, so weak answers slide into describing the topic rather than arguing about it. The technique is to find the assumption hiding inside it — here, that "free" means free to provide — and make that your argument.
Is it risky to raise a point against my own side?
No, it is a strength at Band 7 and above, provided you answer it. The Band 8.5 model concedes that free entry mostly benefits people who already visit, then explains why the policy should still be judged on marginal visitors. An unanswered objection weakens you; an answered one makes the position look tested.
Can my conclusion suggest something new?
It can refine your position — narrowing it, adding a condition, proposing a design — and that reads as thoughtful. What it must not do is introduce a completely new argument that the essay has not supported, which looks like you ran out of room.
How much does handwriting or spelling matter?
Spelling is assessed under Lexical Resource, so repeated errors do cost you. In the computer-delivered test there is no spellchecker, so the habit of proofreading the last two minutes is worth more than one extra sentence.
