The government should regulate new developments, and the authorities have a responsibility to protect important heritage buildings in Vietnam. Do you agree?
In the modern era, people are more keen on something new and updated so the issue that whether the government should restore old buildings or not has sparked a heated debate. In Vietnam, some individuals believe that the authorities ought to be in charge of preserving the heritage buildings, whereas others say that it is important to construct advanced roads and other structures. From my opinion, I partially agree with the idea. In this essay, I will give some arguments in favor to support my opinion.
From an overall perspective, there are two main reasons why I reckon that the ancient buildings should be protected in Vietnam. Perhaps the main reason is that they are being replaced by a thousand of modern towers for commercial purpose. To illustrate, because of catching up with the contemporary lifestyle, the government seem to more concentrate on outstanding construction to show that the country are rich, enhancing and deserved to receive the investment from others. That is the reason why there are many heritage buildings in their deaths due to the value of history that they have. Thus, it is essential to conserve these buildings so they will be an educational resource which are aimed for the future generations. Children will be enabled to learn about their past such as what trend their cities went through or what their lifestyle was affected by. In addition, the historic buildings has the ability of tourist attractions. In these days, a number of visitors are interested in something date back so they will be more excited to pay a visit to these types of buildings, which are considered to be one of the vital symbols of each city or country. This has led to the authorities should be responsible for keeping those buildings in safe.
On the other hand, I would argue that the government ought not to spend fully funds on renovating the old buildings if they are hardly demolished by natural reasons. First and foremost, in the past, people did not have reinforced concrete in the comparison to what they have nowadays, some buildings made from wood so they will be rotten because they have survived from amount of impacts of nature. As a result, allowing them to stay in their dilapidated state poses a serious threat to life and property. Moreover, that also wastes of public money without any effective results. Instead of renewing them, the government prefer to construct new infrastructure which meets the need of citizens. For example, there will be more road are built to deal with traffic congestion or more advance buildings will be in use to provide more job prospects. Secondly, the heritage buildings could not be a remarkable point for tourism industry if all buildings had the same structure. This results in the boredom of travelers who witness the same kind of houses in an area.
In conclusion, protecting the cultural building is very important to maintain the historic buildings. However, it is not necessary to do it regardless any consequences. In my opinion, the authorities should focus on the aged buildings which can show clearly the special traditions of a region. If the government implements this policy, it will provide a better opportunity for national tourism and an excellent education methods to teach students about the history.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-06-23 | AnhNguyen752002 | 56 | view |
- government and private spending on healthcare 67
- the adverse impacts of globalization on the cultural identity erosion 73
- Below is a chart showing how many hours per week the average person spent on various kinds of media including watching TV surfing on the Internet listening to the radio and reading printed material The years covered are from 1990 to 2005 73
- Coal consumption by sectors in the UK in million tonnes 75
- adaptation when living in new country 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 811, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...on or more advance buildings will be in use to provide more job prospects. Secondly...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, whereas, for example, i reckon, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, in my opinion, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 13.1623246493 220% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 7.85571142285 229% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 10.0 10.4138276553 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 45.0 24.0651302605 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 41.998997996 198% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2750.0 1615.20841683 170% => OK
No of words: 550.0 315.596192385 174% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12529762239 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84273464058 4.20363070211 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78950571764 2.80592935109 99% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 176.041082164 162% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518181818182 0.561755894193 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 854.1 506.74238477 169% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 2.10420841683 143% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 4.76152304609 294% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 16.0721442886 156% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.2975951904 108% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.8437035714 49.4020404114 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 106.682146367 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 20.7667163134 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.48 7.06120827912 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.67935871743 173% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.226724987062 0.244688304435 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0625817586973 0.084324248473 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0555814597383 0.0667982634062 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149149275866 0.151304729494 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230602973189 0.056905535591 41% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 13.0946893788 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 50.2224549098 98% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.4159519038 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 78.4519038076 181% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.1190380762 107% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.