It is often argued that funds should be spent on constructing new buildings instead of restoring the older constructions. I firmly disagree to this notion as such steps can be a burden on the financial budget of a government. Additionally, it can be a major set back for the tourism industry. In this essay, I will espouse to this view with relevant examples in support of my argument.
To commence with, construction of new structures such as museums, townhalls, and clock towers are rather expensive and it can affect the financial planning of a government. Nowadays, construction involves technology and heavy use of machinery along with human efforts which will make the project a costly affair. For example, a survey carried out by the Punjab Government reveals that creation of new museum in Chandigarh is ten times expensive than the budget allocated for the refurbishment of the old museum. Moreover, these resources can be utilized for providing the other facilities to society such as schools, hospitals and parks instead of new construction. Therefore, such constructions is a huge expense and impact the financial planning.
Furthermore, the historical value associated with such buildings made them an attractive site for the visitors. These constructions interest them because of their age old heritage which they more likely to see in their original form. If the renovation of these sites is not maintained, tourist will no longer enthusiastic about them. For Instance, the Delhi Tourism Ministry has lost half of their revenue last year due to the lack of restoration of Red Fort. Hence, the slow down in tourism sector will be inevitable.
In Conclusion, building new structures involves high cost and preservation of historical places is imperative to gain the attention of travellers. So, I believe that renovation of ancient sites make more sense.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 637, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ety such as schools, hospitals and parks instead of new construction. Therefore, ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 7.85571142285 115% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 7.30460921844 68% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 24.0651302605 96% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 41.998997996 95% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 8.3376753507 192% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1576.0 1615.20841683 98% => OK
No of words: 301.0 315.596192385 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23588039867 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16525528304 4.20363070211 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0453031293 2.80592935109 109% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601328903654 0.561755894193 107% => OK
syllable_count: 481.5 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 5.43587174349 129% => OK
Article: 4.0 2.52805611222 158% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.76152304609 63% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.5273847412 49.4020404114 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5 106.682146367 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8125 20.7667163134 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 7.06120827912 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => 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: 0.163850770875 0.244688304435 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0521063816747 0.084324248473 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0448471226602 0.0667982634062 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.095475395596 0.151304729494 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0374176567345 0.056905535591 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.0946893788 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.4159519038 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.41 8.58950901804 110% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 78.4519038076 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 9.78957915832 77% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 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.