Some people think that the government should knock down old buildings and make way for new buildings.
Do you agree or disagree?
Owing to fascinating developments in the field of construction, there at times is visible a huge disparity in buildings that are old and new. Hence, some people come up with an argument that the government should knock down old buildings to allow the construction of new ones. The idea does seem modern yet upon deeper thought is not feasible and I disagree with it.
Knowing down all the buildings and construction new ones at a given time is not at all possible at any place whatsoever. The old coexists with the new. A building is usually designed to last a hundred years and to tear it down when all it needs is a little maintenance is a waste of precious money that can be used for all other kinds of infrastructure development. Also, some parts of cities are heritage location preservation which is mandatory for us if we wish to take pride in our culture and tradition. They are walk-in museums of a life gone past, the beauty and complexity of which is there for us to appreciate and learn from.
Further, it is not always possible to predict that the current designs of buildings will pass the test of time and remain equally acceptable and effcient in future. All is all, a small proportion of old buildings may be risky or may not be 'fit' for today's life style in terms of comfort and can be therefore razed to the ground.
There is no doubt that at times old structures need a lot more maintenance than the comfort they provide for us or with the growth of the city come to be on a location which makes circulation of traffic difficult. In this case, the old certainty should make place for the new so that space can be better utilized and we can save the human and material resources that need to be spent on endless maintenance tasks.
Conclusively, to simply knock down old buildings and build new ones is not a good idea according to me. I think it is a mockery of the concept of development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 155, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... remain equally acceptable and effcient in future. All is all, a small proportion of old ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, if, may, so, therefore, i think, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 13.1623246493 175% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 41.998997996 126% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1571.0 1615.20841683 97% => OK
No of words: 349.0 315.596192385 111% => OK
Chars per words: 4.50143266476 5.12529762239 88% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68208617676 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.512893982808 0.561755894193 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 492.3 506.74238477 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.60771543086 87% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.7473763735 49.4020404114 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.214285714 106.682146367 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9285714286 20.7667163134 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85714285714 7.06120827912 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.291395376575 0.244688304435 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.103909848937 0.084324248473 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0821458113808 0.0667982634062 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172837935151 0.151304729494 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0768887080762 0.056905535591 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 50.2224549098 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.12 12.4159519038 73% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.58950901804 92% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 78.4519038076 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 9.78957915832 82% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 10.7795591182 74% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 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.