Since most information about culture and history can be found online, museums are no longer needed. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

There is no doubt that the

internet

has risen in popularity over the past few decades.

Although

burgeoning

information

about traditions and past values can be found on the

internet

, I believe that only by going to museums, people would realize the real exuberance. As the

internet

is becoming increasingly popular,

most

Suggestion

more information

information

could be obtained from it rather than going to a museum.

This

is because there is plenty of

information

available online, and perhaps people could receive almost all

information

via digital platforms. Not only social networks have local details, but they have

also

got a lot of data about global history.

As a result

,

this

is likely to reduce the necessity of visit museums and art galleries.

For example

, Wikipedia is widely popular for providing facts about all kinds of

information

about culture and history.

Thus

, the argument goes in a way that museums may no longer require to provide

such

facts. Yet, I believe that museums still play a vital role in providing much-needed details. Since sentiments on the relics of the past cannot be realized by watching them through computer screens, it can only be felt by seeing them through physical eyes and touching them with bare hands. As a tangible example, the excitement of extinct species,

such

as dinosaurs can only be realized by touching their remains of bones in the museums.

This

will create motivation for the past, and it is likely to encourage people to pursue more and more archaeological evidence so that the world could unfold interesting relics.

Therefore

, we cannot completely deny exhibits. In conclusion, despite having all

information

on the

internet

that could make people's life more convenient, the real excitement is felt only by visiting museums and monuments.

Therefore

, exhibits are required.