Many old buildings protected by law are part of a nation’s history. Some people think they should be knocked down and replaced by news ones. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
It is believed by many people that ancient buildings which are ruled to protect by the law has to diminished and replaced with the new ones. This issue will cite significant factors of why society should maintain the structures, however, I strongly disagree of this issue which will be elaborated in the forthcoming paragraph.
To begin with, preserving national-heritage buildings will simbolise valuable national historic landmark experiencing how ancestors demonstrated past life as those have firmly stood and witnessed the changes of civilization. In spite of knocking them down, this is to prevent modern era invading its historical value. Furthermore, the unique architertural design is more likely to be beneficial for tourism attraction. Gedung Sate built before Indonesia independence’s day, to illustrate, is well-known for the skewer ornament on its top which attract either domestic or international tourist over the years.
Conversely, it seems to me that supporting its existence shows the drawbacks which the cost big money. As a matter of fact, not only the brick and construction used is vulnerable, but also the unique design requires special maintenance whose cost can be used for other national urgencies (health and poverty). In addition, the imbalance of growing population and the availability of land space to provide proper housing will be main consideration. By demolishing abandoned historical places, the authorities can function its land to build residential home for the homeless or poor society.
In conclusion, maintaining the ancient building preserved by government can bring merits, including preserving national iconic buildings and attracting worldwide tourists from every nations. While I believe a state fund could also be equally distributed to other national issues as well as public needs.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-11 | Lư Kim Ngân | 56 | view |
| 2024-11-11 | Lư Kim Ngân | 56 | view |
| 2024-11-08 | Lư Kim Ngân | 56 | view |
| 2024-11-08 | honganhb2409759 | 56 | view |
| 2024-11-06 | Lư Kim Ngân | 56 | view |
- Today more and more tourists are visiting places where conditions are difficult such as sahara desert or Antrarctica What are the benefits and disadvantages of going there 89
- Shops should not be allowed to sell any food or drinks that have been scientifically proven to be bad for people s health To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- Many companies sponsor sports to advertise their products or service What advantages and disadvantages does this bring for the teams and individuals that these companies sponsor 90
- Many first year university students discover after they have started their course that their chosen subjects do not suit them Why does this happen What can be done to ensure that students can choose a suitable subject 90
- More and more people want to own items such as cars clothing and other things that are made by famous brands Do you think it is a positive or negative development 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 279, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'urgencies'' or 'urgency's'?
Suggestion: urgencies'; urgency's
...ose cost can be used for other national urgencies health and poverty. In addition, the im...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, furthermore, however, if, so, well, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, as a matter of fact, as well as, in spite of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 10.4138276553 86% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 7.30460921844 96% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 24.0651302605 66% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 41.998997996 76% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 8.3376753507 144% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1564.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 278.0 315.596192385 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.62589928058 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.08329915638 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16091071608 2.80592935109 113% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 176.041082164 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.676258992806 0.561755894193 120% => OK
syllable_count: 486.0 506.74238477 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 16.0721442886 75% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6205226929 49.4020404114 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.333333333 106.682146367 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1666666667 20.7667163134 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 13.3333333333 7.06120827912 189% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 3.9879759519 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169547152692 0.244688304435 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0565073777152 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0505952911745 0.0667982634062 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102709504866 0.151304729494 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0419931421889 0.056905535591 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 13.0946893788 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 50.2224549098 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.29 8.58950901804 120% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 78.4519038076 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.