When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.
How well versed are we with mankind’s history? The author of the above issue supports the idea of forsaking historical structures in favour of new modern development. However, the author fails to accommodate various factors in his argument, which inhibits the settlement of this debate. I for once, agree with the author to some extent but also acknowledge a few flaws in the authors statement by taking into consideration two factors.
Society is a cumulative construct based on the history and previous experiences. It is these experiences and knowledge that build up the basis of our culture today. Of all the things which portray the past, historic buildings are one of the most massive structures which display the hard work and struggle our predecessors went through. They act as an epitome of diligence our ancestors had to undergo and constantly remind us of them. Modern constructions which try to utilize the space efficiently and are of no match to such relics which hold such strong value. Hence, in most general cases, modern constructions should not be given priority over historic buildings.
Another factor to be considered before vaguely jumping to conclusions is to also consider the aspects of modernization and its impact on lifestyle. Cities are built from dust to wonders for people to come together and live in harmony. Modern planners play a vital role in the nurturing of this healthy environment by developing infrastructure for the people. An increased number of people coming to cities to be part of this amazing idea would eventually lead to housing problems and inaccessibility to facilities. Hence, historic buildings would just translate to superfluous structures which occupy space. In an ideal scenario, these buildings should be brought down in order to accommodate the ever growing needs.
The issue presented by the author is rather a complex topic to land a conclusion on. One side is based in invaluable sentiments and the other side lays its foundation on practicality. Hence, where should the sacrifice be made is a very thin rope very difficult to walk upon.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-21 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-30 | vikey | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | chagens96 | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-22 | tanishqjain1002 | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-21 | Charan H S | 50 | view |
- Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia. Using an observation-centered approach to studying Tertian culture, he concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather than 26
- When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 382, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...but also acknowledge a few flaws in the authors statement by taking into consideration ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...as an epitome of diligence our ancestors had to undergo and constantly remind us ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, so, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.4196629213 40% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 33.0505617978 54% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 2235.4752809 79% => OK
No of words: 343.0 442.535393258 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17201166181 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95796410262 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.609329446064 0.4932671777 124% => OK
syllable_count: 558.9 704.065955056 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.5614295382 60.3974514979 49% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 93.3684210526 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0526315789 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.05263157895 5.21951772744 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237259237627 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0635046783288 0.0831039109588 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804928759539 0.0758088955206 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120761221367 0.150359130593 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0700169166346 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.1392134831 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.8420337079 109% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 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: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
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.