Should museums charge for admission? Museums are expensive to run, with the cost of acquisitions, conservation, maintenance, staff salaries and special exhibitions all weighing heavily upon their budgets. But others think as a non-profit organization, museum should not charge for admission since it can get government support. The following is an article about this issue. Read it carefully and write your response in about 300 words, in which you should:
　　1. Summarize briefly the author’s opinion on the issue;
　　2. give your comment.
　　Marks will be awarded for content relevance, content sufficiency, organization and language quality. Failure to follow the above instructions may result in a loss of marks.
　　Britain’s museums are in crisis. On the surface, things look good. Our galleries have benefited from years of expansion. But all over Britain, a darker reality is emerging in the wake of spending cuts. A survey has shown that since the spending review 58% of museums have suffered cuts, and a fifth have been hit by devastating cuts of 25%.
　　On that measure, yes, 42% have not yet suffered cuts—but surely it’s a policy of divide and rule, with councils, not central government, making the big decisions, and less fashionable venues taking the biggest hits (at least as far as I can see). But an overall climate of contraction will surely hit all museums and all aspects of what they do. And there is little chance of this improving in the near future.
　　The worst option is for museums and public collections to start selling works to pay the bills. The recent sale of a Millais by one cash-strapped council is a terrible mistake, a betrayal of our cultural heritage.
　　The best option, I am starting to think, may be to introduce admission fees. I spat out this notion earlier this week in the wake of the attack on two paintings recently in the National Gallery. The debate was taken up by the Telegraph. Obviously, attacks on