In recent years, there has been a widespread debate over whether governments in various parts of the world should invest in the maintenance of archaic buildings. Some people argue that this enormous expenditure will bring considerable benefits to society if reasonably used for building new houses and roads. However, I strongly disagree with this idea to a large extent for two reasons.
To begin with, it is incumbent upon a government to spend a fixed budget on the renovation of old buildings, for they are of cultural and historical significance. For example, the Great Wall in Beijing is of paramount importance to all Chinese. Not only does this architectural heritage remind people of their history and culture but it also represents the pride and strength of Chinese people. Since the cultural and historical significance embedded in old architecture cannot be superseded by new infrastructure such as houses and roads, it is reasonable for a government to fund the protection of derelict buildings for the benefit of its people.
In addition, old edifices are an important source of revenue for local residents. Well-preserved historical buildings appeal to both domestic and international tourists who spend a significant amount of money on guides and local products, thus initiating a growth in tourism and stimulating local economy. Moreover, the influx of tourists generates significant employment in that area, which in turn increases both the local inhabitants’ income and the government’s tax revenue. Therefore, the renovation of old buildings is a feasible strategy employed to increase people’s economic benefits.
To recapitulate, the idea that government revenues used for the construction of new houses and roads would bring more benefits is completely preposterous. The restoration of old buildings is extremely crucial from the cultural, historical and economic perspective. Though the governments need to invest in new houses and roads, they should not compromise the funds reserved for old structures.
- In many countries women are allowed to take maternity leave from their jobs during the first month after the birth of their baby Does advantage outweigh disadvantages 73
- All the people in a company should be treated equally and provided with the same number of vacations in a year To what extent do you agree or disagree 100
- All the people in a company should be treated equally and provided with the same numbers of vacations in a year To what extent do you agree or disagree 100
- All the people in a company should be treated equally and provided with the same numbers of vacations in a year To what extent do you agree or disagree 95
- In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry.Why is this the case?What can be done about this problem? 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, in addition, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 13.1623246493 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 24.0651302605 58% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 41.998997996 105% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1734.0 1615.20841683 107% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53993610224 5.12529762239 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29105429759 2.80592935109 117% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 176.041082164 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584664536741 0.561755894193 104% => OK
syllable_count: 543.6 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.9416496258 49.4020404114 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.857142857 106.682146367 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3571428571 20.7667163134 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.78571428571 7.06120827912 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.67935871743 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221720199601 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0762119156213 0.084324248473 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0476235841048 0.0667982634062 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143716616839 0.151304729494 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631984577114 0.056905535591 111% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 13.0946893788 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.4159519038 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 78.4519038076 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.