The author in the statement implies that in a face-off between urban development and historical preservation, urban development should take precedence. Tearing down of these historical relics would be justified if the same land can be utilized to serve the needs of the modern society. There argument is rife with several assumptions and unless these are explored, the debate cannot be completely settled. While the author no doubt believes that the solution of replacing old buildings with modern ones is a more practical one, a well defined policy necessitates a more holistic view to ensure that the policy accords with reasons of the majority.
The foremost assumption implicit in the statement is that there is a paucity of land and other areas cannot be utilized for requirements as the modern planners intend. While it is true that with increasing population and immigration has resulted in higher infrastructural demands, it is also true that that vast areas in any major world city are poorly planned. If these unorganized areas were to be restructured then the land could be better utilized and historical architecture would not need to be demolished. It is also possible to extend the official limits of a city to accommodate the demands of urban migration. Both these alternate solutions need to be considered before the more drastic step as proposed by the author.
The authors view also belies an outlook that regards historical buildings and architecture as having little more than aesthetical value. This outlook however is a very narrow one and it undervalues the importance of historical buildings from an economic, pedantic and cultural aspect. Historical buildings are thriving hubs of economic activity and attract a large number of tourists from across the world, contributing the nations GDP. The economic gains are not limited to ticket sales, but its value is derived also from the employment it provides to a large number of ancillary services. Additionally these ancestral heritages are gold mines of learning to a large cross section of people, from children to architects and history aficionados. In their absentia, we would feel a cultural void and cities would become little more than concrete jungles with dispassionate modern architecture. These other uses of historical buildings are so important in fact that UNESCO has designated many sites as world heritage and any alteration to these by any human acitivity is not permissible.
The third assumption is that the requirements of modern planners preclude any means of co-existence and it is only in the absence of one that the other can proliferate. Many heritage sites however serve the needs of the modern society be it commercial or residential. Connaught place in New Delhi, India, for instance is a large commercial as well as residential hub. At the same time the supreme court’s ruling ensures that the buildings are preserved and no changes to the façade is made.
In light of the above arguments, it has been established that there is no justifiable reason to replace old buildings with new ones. The solution to the needs of the modern man need to be looked elsewhere and not on the legacy of our ancestors.
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting you 66
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be 50
- Unfortunately, in contemporary society, creating an appealing image has become more important than the reality or truth behind that image.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your r 16
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting 75
- Productivity and rewards 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...g hubs of economic activity and attract a large number of tourists from across the world, contrib...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 555, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...also from the employment it provides to a large number of ancillary services. Additionally these ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 593, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...o a large number of ancillary services. Additionally these ancestral heritages are gold mine...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, then, third, well, while, for instance, in fact, no doubt, as well as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 12.9106741573 163% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2698.0 2235.4752809 121% => OK
No of words: 524.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14885496183 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92092481242 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488549618321 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 885.6 704.065955056 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.740449438202 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.5304228455 60.3974514979 56% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 122.636363636 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8181818182 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.22727272727 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276225601999 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0752715729566 0.0831039109588 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620341337217 0.0758088955206 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158409096786 0.150359130593 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03799991602 0.0667264976115 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.18 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 146.0 100.480337079 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.