Today there are plenty of opposing opinions as to whether governments should dedicate a considerable part of their budget to reinstating run-down buildings or not. It is claimed that public purse should be expended on the construction of new and safer buildings. While I agree with this point of view to some extent, I also believe that the reconditioning of certain dilapidated buildings is necessary.
Today there are plenty of opposing opinions as to whether governments should dedicate a considerable part of their budget to reinstating run-down buildings or not. It is claimed that public purse should be expended on the construction of new and safer buildings. While I agree with this point of view to some extent, I also believe that the reconditioning of certain dilapidated buildings is necessary.
On the one hand, I claim that most buildings which were constructed ages ago could pose a threat to residents living inside or nearby. These buildings are highly vulnerable to extreme weather conditions such as a hurricane or minor earthquake. In other words, they can trigger regrettable loss of life and property when abruptly collapsing. In addition, most ancient buildings are of little economic value and often derelict due to being uninhabitable to dwellers. Nowadays, people prefer to live in modern and fully equipped houses rather than in a tilted and rickety apartment block. From an economic perspective, restoration is actually a waste of resources, especially if that building is located in a city center where profitability of the property is always the top priority. As a consequence, it is my view that governments should spend this money to construct more fortified and economically valuable ones.
However, some ancient buildings should be preserved due to their cultural and historical values. Historic buildings which have existed throughout different periods of history might be symbolic of a city or country. The collapse of such architectural works will inflict damage on local cultural heritage and in many cases deprive locals of a substantial source of tourist income. Therefore, it is understandable that many people oppose widespread destruction and and call for the preservation of these age-old buildings.
In conclusion, although we should restore historically significant old buildings constructed by previous generations, I believe that overly run-down and culturally or economically worthless buildings have to be superseded by new ones for safety if they are situated near residential areas.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-06-09 | hungnguyen0719 | 89 | view |
- The table shows the export values of various products in 2009 and 2010 78
- Nowadays people hold different opinions about whether people should eat imported food or not Some people think that it is completely appropriate when the quality of humans life is higher than before In my opinion I think that this tendency has positive an 78
- Advertising is becoming more and more common in everyday life Some people say that Advertising has a positive impact on our lives To what extent do you agree or disagree 78
- It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments such as the South pole Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages 78
- In some countries small town centre shops are going out of business because people tend to drive to large out of town stores As a result people without cars have limited access to out of town stores and it may result in an increase in the use of cars Do y 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 45, Rule ID: WHETHER[6]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "as to"?
Suggestion: whether
...y there are plenty of opposing opinions as to whether governments should dedicate a considera...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 459, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: and
...ny people oppose widespread destruction and and call for the preservation of these age-...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, so, therefore, well, while, as to, in addition, in conclusion, such as, in many cases, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 10.4138276553 154% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 24.0651302605 100% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 8.3376753507 84% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1810.0 1615.20841683 112% => OK
No of words: 330.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.48484848485 5.12529762239 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14672713207 2.80592935109 112% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.621212121212 0.561755894193 111% => OK
syllable_count: 572.4 506.74238477 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 5.43587174349 147% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.785446413 49.4020404114 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.666666667 106.682146367 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 7.06120827912 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.01903807615 40% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => 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: 0.390236324797 0.244688304435 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123928201204 0.084324248473 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.182615553696 0.0667982634062 273% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.261830745957 0.151304729494 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.233310594127 0.056905535591 410% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 13.0946893788 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 50.2224549098 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 11.3001002004 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.5 12.4159519038 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.85 8.58950901804 115% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 78.4519038076 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.