The restoration of old buildings in major cities around the world costs enormous amounts of money.
This money would be better spent on providing new housing and road development.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
In this globalised ion, without any qualms, it is affirmed that the renewal of ancient buildings in big cities across the globe would cost a huge sum of money. People on one side assert that as it may spent effectively on basic infrastructures. Whilst, others coincide that, it is crucial to maintain these structures. Thereby, I completely agree with the latter viewpoint and in this essay, I shall explain both the sides by analysing it.
On the one hand, there are compelling pieces of evidence obtainable to prove that the significant amount of money spent on such buildings is highly useful. Firstly, it helps to learn about our ancient history, if it is demolished then a part of our history would die along with that which would be a national loss. Secondly, it attracts more overseas visitors, which creates employment opportunities for the dwellers. Thirdly, the hindmost inextricable feature is it increases the government revenue through tourism. Consider TajMahal, for instance, it is the oldest building from the Mughal emperor period but maintaining its aesthetic value lures more visitors each year.
On the flip side, people across the board discriminate that these costs can spend on public Welfare. First of all, this money would be used to develop the housing area for the people from highly deprived society. Furthermore, withal they explain that increasing road standards would reduce traffic congestions and untimely accidents. However, these problems perchance easily solved through the money earned from tourism revenue.
In conclusion, spending on old buildings helps to learn the history and acts as a source of income for the government. Ergo, it's contrary perhaps overlooked or curbed.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, for instance, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 13.1623246493 68% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 7.30460921844 123% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 24.0651302605 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 8.3376753507 72% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1455.0 1615.20841683 90% => OK
No of words: 274.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3102189781 5.12529762239 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75297900247 2.80592935109 98% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 176.041082164 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.653284671533 0.561755894193 116% => OK
syllable_count: 437.4 506.74238477 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 5.43587174349 184% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 20.2975951904 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.0654885438 49.4020404114 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 106.682146367 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2666666667 20.7667163134 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.93333333333 7.06120827912 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 3.9879759519 100% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221529059872 0.244688304435 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0596365403739 0.084324248473 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0602485405965 0.0667982634062 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119176162271 0.151304729494 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524634107898 0.056905535591 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 13.0946893788 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 50.2224549098 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.44779559118 42% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 11.3001002004 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.4159519038 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.83 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 78.4519038076 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 9.78957915832 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 10.1190380762 91% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 78.6516853933 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.0 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.