Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society’s past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic building so that contemporary needs can be served.
Many regions preserve some relics that are descended from history, sometime this existence will contradict with the practical purpose of modern society. In this sense, the speaker claims that development in modern society is more important than preserving historic buildings despite it is a valuable record of past society. In my view, I don’t agree with the speaker’s idea, although I concede that practical aspects are also needed to be concerned.
Admittedly, it is reasonable for planners to put a higher priority on modern development over preservation of ruins. There are two reasons to support it. First, the development of society ensures the living of people. After all, we humans are living creature, only after our survivals are secured, can we start to do other “high” things like protecting historic relics. Second, there is limited space in modern cities, so that it is unconscionable to sacrifice the living standard for the things that are old fashioned.
However, there are various reasons that we need to concern more about the historic relics despite the points I mentioned above. First, historical things are unique and cannot be replicated. Compared to things in current society, which are generated continuously: commercial buildings, factories, and theme parks are developing and constructing incessantly today; by contrast, historical ruins are rare and are decaying, they will only decrease in number over time. After all, no one will deny that the things are rarer are have more value.
Furthermore, most of the time, preserving historical relics does not contradict the idea of pragmatism. Actually, it exists a solution to benefit both between practical uses and preservation of historic things. On one hand, it can help boost the economy, which ensures the living of the people. By the uniqueness of relics, it can be a great inducement to attract tourism. For example, in Italy, the Arena of Rome is the hallmark of its city, which appeals to numerous tourists to come every year and create myriad job opportunities and lucre to Rome. On the other hand, in fact, modern and historic things can coexist, we don’t need to abandon any one of them. To illustrate, there are many restaurants in Taiwan that are remodeled from the ruins that remain from the period that we are colonized by Japan. This solution not only endues life for old things but also solves the problem of limited space in the city.
To sum up, it is understandable that people will argue that development needs to be given precedence over preservation since less and less space for living and the reason that we need to sustain our livings. But after deliberation, we will find an irreplaceable nature of relics, that is worth for people to bestow more importance on them. Also, there is no clear-cut between the preservation of historic relics and the development of society, it exists a balanced way to take care of both.
- At various times in the geological past many species have become extinct as a result of natural rather than human processes Thus there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts especially at a great cost in money and jobs to save endan 90
- Only through mistakes can there be discovery or progress 75
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement To improve the quality of education universities should spend more money on salaries for university professors Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 76
- It is the artist not the critic who gives society something of lasting value 50
- The chief benefit of the study of history is to break down the illusion that people in one period of time are significantly different from people who lived at any other time in history 58
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...will deny that the things are rarer are have more value. Furthermore, most of the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, after all, for example, in fact, in my view, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2460.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 483.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09316770186 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78760150515 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492753623188 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4926903984 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.956521739 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04347826087 5.21951772744 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163649786785 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04839153288 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570835502165 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0979338817062 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593327281213 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...will deny that the things are rarer are have more value. Furthermore, most of the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, second, so, after all, for example, in fact, in my view, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 76.0 58.6224719101 130% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2460.0 2235.4752809 110% => OK
No of words: 483.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09316770186 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78760150515 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492753623188 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 782.1 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4926903984 60.3974514979 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.956521739 118.986275619 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.4991977007 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04347826087 5.21951772744 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163649786785 0.243740707755 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04839153288 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570835502165 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0979338817062 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593327281213 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.