With a Discuss Both Views question, you can't CHANGE the reasoning behind one view!

What's the difference between these two possible beginnings to a discussion essay and how that ?

1. Some people believe that tourism should be banned in certain areas, while others believe... 
2. Some people believe that to protect local culture, tourism should be banned in certain areas, while others believe... 

 The difference is in what you need to think about before you begin writing.  In #1, during your pre-writing brainstorming, you'll want to think of reasons
why some people believe this view. Ecological damage to the environment? Perhaps some areas are too dangerous because of local conflicts? 

In #2, they've already given you the reasoning behind the view-> Protecting local cultures. In this case, you shouldn't spend too much time discussing whether or how tourism might hurt local cultures. The question says it does, so go from there. Instead, I think it's better to consider if THE DAMAGE HARMFUL ENOUGH to then ban tourism? So it's not WHAT are the harmful effects, instead discuss the impact of the harm compared to the impact of banning tourism.

In generic terms:

 Some people believe IDEA X, so then we should DO THING Y... 

For #2, don't waste time discussing why people believe Idea X. The paragraph you write on this view should be your opinion on whether or not Idea X means we SHOULD do Thing Y.

Presenting an opinion there can lead to very effective cohesions between BP1 and BP2.  What's the difference between these two possible second halves to the above question?

1. while others believe banning tourism will have no benefits. 
2. while others believe that change is invevitable and banning tourism will have no benefits. 

Again, in #1, no reasons are described for the reasoning behind this view. So in discussing both views, it would make sense to start there. Of course, there ARE benefits to tourism - that's hard to deny. A sophisitcated essay might qualify it by saying that the benefits aren't going to the right people or that the negative aspects of tourism are such that it's not accurate to call any upsides as being beneficial.   

In #2, again the reasoning behind the belief is given. If you write about how banning tourism shouldn't be done for economic reasons, that may be true, but it doesn't address the question. The key idea is change. As its inevitibilty is used as the foundation for opposing the banning, THAT is what you should be talking about. And just as in the previous BP, I would not advise disagreeing with the premise and trying to show that change is NOT inevitable. Instead, the question is if the constancy of change means banning tourism is a bad idea. You can agree with one part of an idea and disagree with another.

Here's an example of an essay on this topic (using #2 in both my examples) that I reviewed a couple days ago. Does she understand what the effects of those words are on the question, or does she give her own reasons why people believe the two views?



Come back later to see a model essay.