What does the author recommend?
Popular heritage sites are at risk from the visitors who come to admire them. Footfall wears stone, queues crowd out residents, and the income from tickets sometimes fails to cover the damage. One response is to cap numbers and charge high prices. This protects the site, but it risks making the heritage the preserve of the wealthy, which is the reverse of what public heritage is for. A fairer approach is to limit numbers by timed entry and low fixed prices, and to charge more at peak times and to those who do not live nearby. Some visitors will be turned away, but the burden is then spread by timing and by distance, and not entirely by income.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Limiting numbers through timed entry, low fixed prices and higher peak charges
- Step 1: The final sentences recommend timed entry, low fixed prices and higher charges at peak times and for those who do not live nearby.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Limiting numbers through timed entry, low fixed prices and higher peak charges".
Answer
Limiting numbers through timed entry, low fixed prices and higher peak charges.
Why not the others: Unlimited access, universally high prices, permanent closure and universally free tickets are not recommended.
Practise more Tourism and heritage.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.