When old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
The statement claims that modern development should be prioritized over the preservation of historic buildings. I strongly believe that it might be true or not true because it depends on the condition in which both of them should be compared at first before rashly concluding an argument. In order to determine whether it would be better to build modern buildings by replacing the old buildings standing on the ground that the builder think is the best place, we need to consider several things at first including the history value of any building that we want to demolish, the possibility if the old buildings that we want to replace with new and modern buildings can be found anywhere, as well as the urgency and the importance of the new building we want to establish and, of course, the possibility to find other places instead of the place in which the old building stand firmly.
To begin with, it cannot be disputed that many old buildings reflect the history that we cannot change throughout our life because the old buildings could be a symbol of our country, our religion, or any hero ever led our country prosperously. Furthermore, take, for examples, Borobudur and Prambanan Temple situated in Yogyakarta, one of the most populous city in Indonesia. The locations in which those buildings stand are very well-suited if we demolish the building and replace them with metropolitan mall or any modern market building since the location is very close to the most density area in which people have high interest in shopping. What’s more, because of its large area, it could be also harnessed by establishing more buildings important for education purpose since University of Gadjah Mada, as one of the most prestigious university in the city also want to expand the education area. Despite the importance of the development of this modern building and development, in fact, Borobudur and Prambanan Temple are the world heritage that even attract many foreign tourists that could increase the income of the local people as well as the country as a whole. By demolishing those old temples, there will be many drawbacks come into effect, particularly the economic for the local residents who usually sold unique things and local foods.
On the other hand, the purpose of building more advanced buildings could be also beneficial if, actually, the old buildings that we need to replace are unoccupied and have no historical meanings. In the same token, if those old buildings can be visited in the other places, it would strengthen the goal of demolishing those old buildings and establish modern buildings instead. As a result, the modern development that reflects the well-being of society might be achieved with new and lucrative modern buildings, facilities, and development.
Turning to the third point of this essay, before concluding whether it is viable and recommended to replace the old buildings with the new ones, we should deliberate at first which one should be prioritized in the first place. If the modern development is urgent and there is no more place suitable to build the new and modern buildings, while the old buildings only have no or few benefits, then building modern buildings would be convincing. Take, for instance, perhaps people in a city are very difficult to commute around the city because lack of transportation facilities. And, after thorough analysist, the best place to establish the terminal that could attract people because of its convenient location is the place in which the old buildings which are unoccupied stand firmly, then it would be prudent to prioritize the option to build modern buildings referred to terminal rather than the old buildings which have substantial benefits.
To put it in a nutshell, the option to build modern buildings will depend on the condition if we want to replace the old buildings with the new ones. Before rashly making a decision, it would be wise to compare the benefits of replacing the old buildings with the new ones, because it might be possible if, in fact, the old buildings are part of world heritage and reflect the leadership and national or culture value. However, if on the other hand, the old buildings have less benefit than the modern buildings have, then the option to establish the modern buildings that could be lucrative for society would be convincing and need to be prioritized in the first place.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 86, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommended replacing'.
Suggestion: recommended replacing
...ore concluding whether it is viable and recommended to replace the old buildings with the new ones, we...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 373, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...ings, while the old buildings only have no or few benefits, then building modern b...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'well', 'while', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in fact', 'of course', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'to begin with', 'in the first place', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.205479452055 0.240241500013 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.146948941469 0.157235817809 93% => OK
Adjectives: 0.120797011208 0.0880659088768 137% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0473225404732 0.0497285424764 95% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0361145703611 0.0444667217837 81% => OK
Prepositions: 0.13200498132 0.12292977631 107% => OK
Participles: 0.0323785803238 0.0406280797675 80% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.73711960954 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0311332503113 0.030933414821 101% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.113325031133 0.0997080785238 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0311332503113 0.0249443105267 125% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0186799501868 0.0148568991511 126% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4418.0 2732.02544248 162% => OK
No of words: 734.0 452.878318584 162% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.01907356948 6.0361032391 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.20503932437 4.58838876751 113% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.363760217984 0.366273622748 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.279291553134 0.280924506359 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.212534059946 0.200843997647 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.158038147139 0.132149295362 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73711960954 2.79330140395 98% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 219.290929204 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.376021798365 0.48968727796 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.7381060447 55.4138127331 86% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6194690265 92% => OK
Sentence length: 38.6315789474 23.380412469 165% => OK
Sentence length SD: 105.694930259 59.4972553346 178% => OK
Chars per sentence: 232.526315789 141.124799967 165% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.6315789474 23.380412469 165% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.05263157895 0.674092028746 156% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 66.5607342607 51.4728631049 129% => OK
Elegance: 1.60540540541 1.64882698954 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.463354348135 0.391690518653 118% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.152393920408 0.123202303941 124% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0810024038731 0.077325440228 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.649608544962 0.547984918172 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159539249221 0.149214159877 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.246730403876 0.161403998019 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0948971210163 0.0892212321368 106% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.646158877969 0.385218514788 168% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0604768508153 0.0692045440612 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.384538636512 0.275328986314 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0338083711043 0.0653680567796 52% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.30420353982 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88274336283 82% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.66592920354 27% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 13.5995575221 132% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.