The author state that the development of old buildings has the priority over thier preservation when planners think that these buildings could be better used for modern purpose. Due to the controversary of this topic, there is not a general arguement. I am, however, to a great extent, againt this statement for the following reasons.
For on thing, the most valuable part of old building is not its modern usage but its historic functions like showing us how our ancestors thought about the relationship between human life and the natrual environment, telling us the story about how our society evolves. If we blindly develop and reconstruct these buildings before appropriately preservation, we will destroy the records of our culture and cut the link to our past. For example, in early years of the Nation of People Repubilc China, our leaders thought that we should put development at the first place. For this reason, a lot of old buildings in Beijing were destroyed and replaced by endless factories. Today, all those factories have gone leaving us pity that we could no more experience the rich history anymore.
For another, most of the development of these historic buildings are irreveratble. That how the old building can be better used is objective and temporary, but the destruction to the olding buildings are permenent. Even though the new usage is modern today, it will outdated in a few decade and it will be impossible for our descendents to recovere this olding buildings. In this case, what we should learn is that modern usage is temporary and nothing compared with the vunerability and permenent value of the old buildings.
However, preseravtion and development are not exclusive. What we should do is not simply developing or preseving their orginal status but to find a new way to combine both of them. Again, take the Forbidden City in Beijing as an exmaple, in a contrary way. Today, people are paying more and more attention to presevere the Forbidden City, like introducing bycles for visitors while prohibiting cars, and removing all the lights in the halls to avoid fire. At the same time, the workers, have setted a lot of fixed chairs and printed a bunch of brochures for visitors. These measurements not only persevere the Palace but also advertise its value to more people, conveying the essence of our traditional culture in modern society.
For the reasons and examples above, we can conclude preservation and development are not incomptible. However, when there is confiction, presrvation other than development should be put on the first place.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 281, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun decade seems to be countable; consider using: 'few decades'.
Suggestion: few decades
... is modern today, it will outdated in a few decade and it will be impossible for our desce...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 239, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a contrary way" with adverb for "contrary"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...orbidden City in Beijing as an exmaple, in a contrary way. Today, people are paying more and more...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, so, while, for example, to a great extent
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2168.0 2235.4752809 97% => OK
No of words: 428.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06542056075 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83076537296 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 215.323595506 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525700934579 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 678.6 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.2889439936 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.4 118.986275619 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.276447972503 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0832522061488 0.0831039109588 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856318689219 0.0758088955206 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177312613741 0.150359130593 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0902417555016 0.0667264976115 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.1392134831 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.81 8.38706741573 105% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 Out of 6
---------------------
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.