The restoration of old buildings in major cities in the world spends numerous government expenditures. This money should be use in new housing and road development. To what extent do you agree or disagree.
It is quite clear that the old buildings are historical monuments and they hold historical importance. Therefore, the government should spend to preserve and restore them. However, some people argue that the government budget should be directed towards development of roads and construction of new houses. In my point of view, both of the above mentioned areas should be on the priority list of public spending.
There are many reasons why restoration of the old buildings is important. Firstly, they preserve our history and are the great source of information of that era when they were built. Our predecessors spent a large amount of time, money and effort to construct those remarkable heritage and it is now our responsibility to look after them and transfer to the new generation. Secondly, such buildings are the pride and identity of the city or the nation. For example, Eiffel Tower of Paris, Opera House of Sydney, Taj Mahal of New Delhi etc. are the main attraction of these cities. Moreover, such historical monument provide the landmark to boost tourism industry. Many tourists visit to view those buildings which promoting a number of economic activities and revenue to the government.
On the other hand, development of the roads and spending in housing is vital to continue economic growth and provide better living standard for the community. Well maintained roads are the pivotal of national development as a good transportation system helps to grow economic activities. Likewise, subsidised new housing benefits society in many ways and it is essential to maintain better living standard of the civilised society. Undeniably, government budget should be directed to these sectors with higher priority.
In conclusion, restoration of the old buildings or construction of new housing and roads are not the conflicting goals of a nation. They are not the different choices for government spending, rather they both should be accomplished together.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-23 | aryaashwin | 56 | view |
| 2018-10-06 | Laxman Basyal | 73 | view |
- Do you support that the nuclear technology should be used for constructive purposes?Use your own knowledge and experience and support your arguments with examples and relevant evidence.Give reasons for your viewpoint. 56
- Some sports are extremely dangerous but many people still like them very much. However some others think extremely dangerous games should be banned. Why do people take part in dangerous sports give some suggestions on how to deal with dangerous. 73
- Some people think sport, art and cultural activities should be government top priority list of expenditure, however, some other think government needs to invest money to promote education, health or engineering rather than to support sports and art. Gi 78
- Has the easier food preparation process nowadays improved the way people live? 84
- Modern lifestyle has made it harder for people to live a healthy and active lifestyle What are the causes of this situation Suggest what can be done by the government and large organisations to improve it 71
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 429, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... buildings are the pride and identity of the city or the nation. For example, Eif...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, likewise, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 13.1623246493 137% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 7.85571142285 64% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 10.4138276553 144% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 24.0651302605 87% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 41.998997996 100% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 8.3376753507 216% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1660.0 1615.20841683 103% => OK
No of words: 313.0 315.596192385 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.303514377 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20616286096 4.20363070211 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91574464282 2.80592935109 104% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546325878594 0.561755894193 97% => OK
syllable_count: 512.1 506.74238477 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
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: 18.0 16.0721442886 112% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.0681875462 49.4020404114 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.2222222222 106.682146367 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3888888889 20.7667163134 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 7.06120827912 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.67935871743 161% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253117262658 0.244688304435 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0773404631325 0.084324248473 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620847040122 0.0667982634062 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165613258692 0.151304729494 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502535975793 0.056905535591 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 13.0946893788 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.58950901804 103% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 78.4519038076 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => 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.