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.
How to make sensible decision between modern development and ancient building conservation? From my perspective, urgent modern development should be taken precedence over conversation of old buildings, if losing chance to preserve the latter. However, this doesn't means that we should neglect our responsibility of conservation for historical relics. It's also worth to point out that those two are not mutually exclusive, as we can well balance them to guarantee our purpose of social progress.
To start off, if robust evidence proves that old buildings have little opportunities for further reservation and become major obstacles for our urgent demand, it is better to make higher priority with modern development and displace outmoded buildings without any hesitation. Since those archaic might occupy significant positions in the city, they might impede with our traffic regulation or expansion of city capacity. Furthermore, they might already be shabby or irreparable, whose existence not only obstruct with social development, but also accumulate huge risks for citizens' safety. In this sense, it is wise to sweep them out and get ready for our foreseen modern development. For example, during onset of Republic of China in 1949, the original Tian’anmen square was both noisome and dilapidated as result of long-time tolerance of wars. For preparation of celebration of new republic, a spate of citizens and soldiers got together and made great effort to do cleaning-ups and dismantled the existing relics on the square. Such laborious works have renewed this square and catered to the urgent demand of the new country.
However, tenable as the issue hold in aforementioned case that ancient buildings should be given way to modern development, I have to concede that in majority of cases we would prefer to protection of historical buildings out of their unique value and the ensuing potential benefits. First of all, except the non-reparation cases mentioned above, blindly eradicating the ancient building might cast inevitable losses for our society, as these remnants is a part of the history and can't restore anymore once removed from the ground. Moreover, conservation of those buildings might contribute to tourism and cultural education, which could lead to further improvement for modern development in the long term. To view an opposite case, we can no further go for destruction of mass of old buildings in China's Cultural Revolution, which take place in 1960s. During that wicked political campaign, China has suffered great loss of precious old buildings and majority of leftovers couldn't be renovated to original status. Had such buildings survived to nowadays, more tourism candidates would be given for our successors and they would learn vividly from paying visits to historical spots.
Last but not last, what I find the most questionable about this issue is that the author assumes current development and conservation of historical remnant as contradictory. However, such assumption could be wrong, as it natively neglects many possibilities to harmonize those two factors and achieve a more synergic progress. With regard to the first part, it is implausible to argue that we have to make exclusive decision between those two, because modern technologies could effectively ameliorate status quo of old building and enlengthen their duration for further usages. From this perspective, it is possible for us to reuse them for modern purposes, such as office usage or public leisure, which in turn avoid unnecessary modern construction and relevant costs. In addition, historical conservation could well serve to cultural industry, which occupies a significant position in contemporary development. Together with supported policy and investments, old buildings could bring about more tourism chances and increase over regional incomes, which could enable governments to fulfill their development goal. Germany's remaining churches from mid ages will exemplify our point. Thanks to frequent maintenance by modern technologies, they not only well function as places of people's daily worship, but also attract a barrage of tourists every year, which further aggrandize financial support and make cultural industry prosperous.
In summary, it's beneficial to make endeavor for modern development, considering inapplicable conservation for ancient buildings and impending urgent demand. However, as discussed before, we shouldn’t natively drop our liability for historical relics. Furthermore, reservation of historical residue and modern development doesn’t form an irreconcilable dichotomy: by leveraging technologies and sensible decisions, we might probably grasp with both of them.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 258, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...e to preserve the latter. However, this doesnt means that we should neglect our respon...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 482, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...e remnants is a part of the history and cant restore anymore once removed from the g...
^^^^
Line 5, column 844, Rule ID: IN_1990s[1]
Message: The article is probably missing here: 'in the 1960s'.
Suggestion: in the 1960s
...s Cultural Revolution, which take place in 1960s. During that wicked political campaign,...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 975, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...old buildings and majority of leftovers couldnt be renovated to original status. Had su...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: LAST_BUT_NOT_LAST[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean: 'Last but not least'?
Suggestion: Last but not least
...m paying visits to historical spots. Last but not last, what I find the most questionable abou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, then, well, for example, in addition, in summary, such as, first of all, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.4196629213 169% => OK
Conjunction : 30.0 14.8657303371 202% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 101.0 58.6224719101 172% => OK
Nominalization: 43.0 12.9106741573 333% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4014.0 2235.4752809 180% => OK
No of words: 712.0 442.535393258 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63764044944 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.16559078211 4.55969084622 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02029912295 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 378.0 215.323595506 176% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530898876404 0.4932671777 108% => OK
syllable_count: 1249.2 704.065955056 177% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 14.0 6.24550561798 224% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 14.0 4.38483146067 319% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 20.2370786517 138% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.6748944997 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.357142857 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4285714286 23.4991977007 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17857142857 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.347686816108 0.243740707755 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0933951909104 0.0831039109588 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652320491643 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211670829747 0.150359130593 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0541540214799 0.0667264976115 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.73 12.1639044944 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 216.0 100.480337079 215% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.