To preserve old historic buildings vs to replace them with new modern buildings
We do not need a time machine to travel back and live in old eras to understand history. We can do that by looking into the present; as history can be explained and interpreted through the present. In my opinion historic and old buildings are one of those mirrors that through looking into it we can see the past. So, it is a government’s obligation to preserve and maintain historic and old buildings by allocating specific budgets for that. I feel this way for a couple of main reasons.
First of all, I see it is a big economical advantage for the cities which have historic and old buildings. Because, such kind of buildings are considered one of the most attractive and interesting elements to tourists. Tourism industry nowadays is an important source of national income to many countries. My own experience is a compelling example of this. For example, Rome, the capital of Italy that I had visited once before, I had found that the amazing old fountains and theaters are surrounded with vast number of visitors and tourists from everywhere in the world. In addition, the hotels located close to them were one hundred percent occupied, and the neighborhood cafes and restaurants were very busy with customers of different cultures and languages. These activities would create thousands of jobs and could profit different kind of businesses. For this, I strongly believe that it is worthwhile to a city to preserve historic and old buildings.
Secondly, replacing historic and old buildings by new tall towers will unfortunately affect on the infrastructure of these cities. Roads, railways, power supply lines, and water and sewer pipe lines have limited capacities which will not proportionate with the vast number of the new comers to live in the new buildings. For instance, in a city like “Alexandria” of Egypt, which used to be a cosmopolitan city with considerable varieties in architectural styles, the local government allowed people to remove the old palaces and villas and build skyscrapers instead. And the end result was catastrophic; traffic is always congested, public sewer pipes are usually clogged, and power supply became a daily suffering. Accordingly, I see that replacing historic old buildings with new modern huge ones will end up with numerous bad effects.
In conclusion, it is very important and I strongly encourage governments to adopt laws to care about historic old buildings and legally prevent replacing them with new modern ones. Not only because of its economic benefits but rather because these cities are not prepared for massive population flood.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
We do not need a time machine to travel ...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s way for a couple of main reasons. First of all, I see it is a big economic...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...reserve historic and old buildings. Secondly, replacing historic and old bui...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 93, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'effect'?
Suggestion: effect
...s by new tall towers will unfortunately affect on the infrastructure of these cities. Roa...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll end up with numerous bad effects. In conclusion, it is very important and ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, if, look, second, secondly, so, while, as to, for example, for instance, i feel, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, first of all, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 15.1003584229 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 9.8082437276 92% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 13.8261648746 174% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.0286738351 91% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 43.0788530466 79% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 52.1666666667 111% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.0752688172 87% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2195.0 1977.66487455 111% => OK
No of words: 426.0 407.700716846 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.15258215962 4.8611393121 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.48103885553 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02874125685 2.67179642975 113% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 212.727598566 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.549295774648 0.524837075471 105% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 618.680645161 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 9.59856630824 115% => OK
Article: 3.0 3.08781362007 97% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.51792114695 28% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.86738351254 214% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.94265232975 101% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.6003584229 97% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 20.1344086022 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.927136451 48.9658058833 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.75 100.406767564 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3 20.6045352989 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.5 5.45110844103 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.5376344086 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 11.8709677419 76% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.85842293907 130% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88709677419 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.407338039399 0.236089414692 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111135109473 0.076458572812 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128307361445 0.0737576698707 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.242965799288 0.150856017488 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0728978367907 0.0645574589148 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 11.7677419355 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 58.1214874552 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 6.10430107527 144% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 10.1575268817 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 10.9000537634 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.01818996416 113% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 86.8835125448 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 10.002688172 80% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.0537634409 103% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.247311828 98% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.