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 the 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 building despite it is a valuable record of past society. In my view, I don’t agree speaker’s idea, although I concede that practical aspects are also needed to be concerned.
Admittedly, it is reasonable for planners to put higher priority on modern development over preservation of ruins. There are two reasons to support it. First, development of society ensure 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 are 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 on the historic relics despite the points I mentioned above. First, the 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 decreasing in number overtime. After all, no one will deny that the things are rarer are have more value.
Furthermore, in most of time, preserving historical relics does not contradict with 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 ensure the living of the people. By the uniqueness of relics, it can be great inducement to attract tourism. For example, in Italy the Arena of Rome is the hallmark of its city, which appeals 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 are remodeled from the ruins that remain from the period that we are colonized by Japan. This solution not only endue the life for old things but also solve 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 the 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 preservation of historic relics and development of society, there exist balanced way to take care of both.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 526, 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, in most of ...
^^^^
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 : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2447.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 477.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12997903564 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79320977395 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501048218029 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 778.5 704.065955056 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 4.38483146067 319% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.78620438 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.391304348 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7391304348 23.4991977007 88% => 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 : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.165704883792 0.243740707755 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0484192544053 0.0831039109588 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570927324694 0.0758088955206 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0991584526025 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0608005374317 0.0667264976115 91% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.1639044944 103% => 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: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.