3月21日雅思笔试写作真题分析+高分范文|历史遗迹应该关闭or开放参观?

【2026.3.21真题题目】

Some people say that historical sites should be completely closed while others say that historical sites should be open for the public to visit. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

一些人认为历史遗址应该完全关闭，而另一些人认为应该对公众开放参观。

讨论双方观点并给出你的看法。

【审题分析】

1️⃣题型判断：「双边讨论」题型

写作时必须分别讨论：

👉关闭历史遗址（close to the public）的合理性

👉对公众开放（open to visitors）的合理性

👉明确表达个人立场

2️⃣题干关键词

🔑 historical sites

→ 历史遗址（如古建筑、遗迹等）

🔑 completely closed

→ 完全关闭（太绝对，极端表达）

🔑 open for the public to visit

→ 对公众开放：普通游客，而非专业研究人员

→ 涉及旅游、教育、保护之间的平衡

3️⃣跑题警告🚨

❌写成“是否应该发展旅游业”

❌写成“历史是否重要”

❌只写保护或只写开放（没有讨论双方）

❌忽略“completely closed”（绝对词）

4️⃣常见思路

📍A方观点：关闭历史遗址（pro-close）的合理性

◆保护文物（核心）

游客可能造成磨损、污染甚至破坏

◆保存原貌（preservation）

减少人为干扰，更好地长期保护

◆管理成本降低

开放需要维护、安全、管理等高成本

📍B方观点：对公众开放（pro-open）的合理性

◆教育价值（文化认同感）

公众可以了解历史与文化

◆文化传承（heritage awareness）

提高人们对文化遗产的保护意识

◆经济收益（tourism revenue）

带动当地经济发展

◆公共权利

历史遗产属于全社会，不应被“封闭化”

📍我方观点—— 折中观点

完全关闭过于极端

但无控制的开放同样有风险

应采取「有限开放 + 有效保护」策略

【参考范文】

Some people argue that historical sites should be completely closed to the public in order to protect them, while others believe that they should remain open for visitors. While both views are understandable, I believe that these sites should be accessible to the public, provided that effective measures are taken to ensure their preservation.

On the one hand, some people argue that historical sites should be completely closed to the public in order to ensure their preservation. Large numbers of visitors can cause direct damage to ancient structures through physical contact, pollution and gradual wear and tear. By restricting access, such human interference can be minimised, allowing these sites to be preserved in their original condition for a longer period of time. In addition, keeping historical sites closed can significantly reduce management costs, as opening them to the public requires substantial spending on maintenance, security and daily operations.

On the other hand, many people believe that historical sites should be open to the public due to their educational and cultural value. Visiting such places allows individuals to gain a deeper understanding of history and develop a stronger sense of cultural identity. Furthermore, public access can raise awareness of the importance of preserving cultural heritage, encouraging people to take responsibility for its protection. From an economic perspective, tourism related to historical sites can also generate significant revenue, which can in turn be reinvested in conservation efforts.

In my opinion, completely closing historical sites is neither practical nor desirable. Instead, governments should adopt a balanced approach that allows controlled access while ensuring effective protection. Measures such as limiting visitor numbers, introducing strict regulations and promoting sustainable tourism can help minimise damage without denying the public the opportunity to experience these sites. In this way, it is possible to preserve historical heritage while still making it accessible for future generations.

【参考译文】

一些人认为，为了保护历史遗址，应当将其完全对公众关闭，而另一些人则认为这些遗址应该对游客开放。尽管这两种观点都有其合理之处，但我认为，在采取有效保护措施的前提下，这些遗址应当向公众开放。

一方面，一些人认为应当将历史遗址完全关闭，以确保其得到保护。大量游客可能通过直接接触、污染以及长期的逐渐磨损，对古老建筑造成破坏。通过限制进入，可以将这种人为干扰降到最低，从而使这些遗址在更长时间内保持其原有状态。此外，关闭历史遗址还可以显著降低管理成本，因为一旦对公众开放，就需要在维护、安全以及日常运营方面投入大量资金。

另一方面，许多人认为历史遗址应向公众开放，因为它们具有重要的教育和文化价值。参观这些地方可以帮助人们更深入地了解历史，并增强文化认同感。此外，对公众开放还能提高人们对保护文化遗产重要性的认识，从而促使他们主动承担起保护责任。从经济角度来看，与历史遗址相关的旅游业还可以带来可观的收入，而这些收入又可以被重新投入到保护工作中。

在我看来，将历史遗址完全关闭既不现实，也不可取。相反，政府应采取一种平衡的方式，在确保有效保护的同时允许有限度的开放。例如，通过限制游客数量、制定严格的管理规定以及推广可持续旅游，可以在不剥夺公众参观机会的情况下，将破坏降到最低。通过这种方式，既可以保护历史遗产，又能够使其为子孙后代所共享。