khanh huyen
Some people think that buildings such as flats and houses should be designed to last a long time Others belive that it is more important to provide accommodation quickly and cheaply Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is widely acknowledged that public figures have had a significant bearing on accommodation as of late. Thus, dwellers remain divided over whether buildings such as houses and flats ought to be erected to meet demand of permanence or the buget and promptly-built ones. While some spur into the former, other go against and lean towards the covenience and time saving involving in the latter kind of houses. Personally, this essay will elaborate both viewpoints in depth before drawing the conclusion that the two perspectives are equally significant.
On the one side, it is thoroughly understandable as to why some people today are putting heavy emphasis on the long- term usage when they look for accommodation. First, solidly- constructed houses effeciently ensure residents’ safety owing to its high posibility in withstanding natural disasters and inclement weather. This is because these buildings call for qualitative materials as well as wholehearted attempt to establish, unlike the cursorily-built ones which are easily collapsed and, worse still, may deprive people’s lives and property. Houses in Viet Nam perfectly exemplifies this situation, as evidenced by the flash floods in centre Viet Nam in 2020, while houses standing on sound foundations encounterd little damage and virtually be unaltered, quarry cottages were utterly swept away along with hundreds of casualties at that time. Another driving factor behind their priority to well-built accommodations could be the elevated demand of having sohisticated architecture. This is attributed to the fact that buildings designed meticulously with striking structure would provoke a strong desire in embellishing their houses such as having them full-furnished and equipped with aesthetic interior. As a result, it could not only enhance their life quality but also contribute to bequeathing housing values to descendants.
On the flip side, there are also myriad reasons expounding why a group of citizens gravitating towards the rapid-constructed and low-cost houses, prominently being the deficiency in terms of accommodation and financial ability. It is irrefutable that overpopulation has spawned in many countries and intensified continually at a frightening rate, thereby increase a manifold demand for accommodation. At the same time, having a shelter to live by has been a burden to some people as unless houses and flats are constantly provided, they might become outcasts and could not improve their living standards no matter how. Another point can be put forward is that low- priced living place would facilitate people from lower walks of life such as workers and manual labors having low income possessing accommodation without being required to pay a great amount of money. Fundamental demand of these underpriviledged people might be a key rationale in favour of this since they only need an affordable place to take refuge, which differs from convenient flats that becomes surplus and luxurious to them.
In conclusion, much as erecting one of the two buildings brings both pros and cons to a certain extent, I am of the opinion that they should be put into consideration so as to meet the demand of assuring safety, suiting pocket as well as the increasing population.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 168, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...t they should be put into consideration so as to meet the demand of assuring safety, sui...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, so, still, thus, well, while, as to, in conclusion, kind of, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 13.1623246493 160% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 7.85571142285 165% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 10.4138276553 182% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 7.30460921844 151% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 24.0651302605 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 8.3376753507 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2757.0 1615.20841683 171% => OK
No of words: 508.0 315.596192385 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42716535433 5.12529762239 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.20363070211 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12061149479 2.80592935109 111% => OK
Unique words: 312.0 176.041082164 177% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614173228346 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 862.2 506.74238477 170% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 5.43587174349 166% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 16.0721442886 106% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 53.8921131669 49.4020404114 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.176470588 106.682146367 152% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.8823529412 20.7667163134 144% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.41176470588 7.06120827912 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.67935871743 104% => 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: 0.202422167182 0.244688304435 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.056510229764 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304677812292 0.0667982634062 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119171895791 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0158741481974 0.056905535591 28% => 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: 19.1 13.0946893788 146% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 50.2224549098 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 11.3001002004 140% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.81 12.4159519038 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.11 8.58950901804 118% => OK
difficult_words: 162.0 78.4519038076 206% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => 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.