Should a city try to preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings? Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.
Nowadays, many old buildings have been destroyed because people prioritize modern buildings, and there is no room to build new facilities. Therefore, they destroy old buildings without thinking about our ancestors or other people. I personally think that a city should preserve these old buildings. I feel this way for two main reasons, which I will explore in the following essay.
Firstly, traditional buildings symbolize the country’s uniqueness. Some countries reflect their religious history through such things as temples and churches. Therefore, many people want to see or touch these unique buildings. For example, Japan has a large number of temples, and these reflect Japan's complex history and the spirit of our ancestors. Every year, many tourists from abroad come to Japan to experience Japanese culture. If these buildings are destroyed by the mere desire to build new facilities, tourists will not be able to experience Japan's unique culture. As a result, Japan’s economy will decline. Therefore, destructing our country’s uniqueness means destroying our economy. Before destruct, we should deeply consider such problems.
Secondly, young people should know and touch their own culture and history. We usually study from a textbook. However, watching our eyes is quite important because we cannot learn completely from a textbook. When I was a high school student, I went to Hiroshima, which had been destroyed by an atomic bomb. Many people know about this catastrophe. I studied from a school textbook, and I thought I could understand everything before I went to Hiroshima. However, when I see the real building, I do not say anything, and I emphasize the sadness that people have experienced in the past. If I did not go there, I could not understand people’s feelings. Of course, a textbook is useful, but when it comes to understanding everything, we should go by our feet.
In conclusion, old buildings play a vital role in attracting tourists, and people should touch them directly to understand. Thanks to our ancestors, we can live in this era. Therefore, we should enthusiastically protect our cultural buildings.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 251, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...nique buildings. For example, Japan has a large number of temples, and these reflect Japans compl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 757, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng everything, we should go by our feet. In conclusion, old buildings play a vita...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 244, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stically protect our cultural buildings.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, for example, i feel, in conclusion, of course, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 15.1003584229 53% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 9.8082437276 133% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 13.8261648746 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 11.0286738351 63% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 42.0 43.0788530466 97% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 52.1666666667 63% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.0752688172 25% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1822.0 1977.66487455 92% => OK
No of words: 341.0 407.700716846 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3431085044 4.8611393121 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.48103885553 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96800562157 2.67179642975 111% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 212.727598566 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.58064516129 0.524837075471 111% => OK
syllable_count: 540.0 618.680645161 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.51630824373 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 9.59856630824 125% => OK
Article: 1.0 3.08781362007 32% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.51792114695 171% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.86738351254 321% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.94265232975 61% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6003584229 117% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 20.1344086022 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.8734867057 48.9658058833 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 75.9166666667 100.406767564 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.2083333333 20.6045352989 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45833333333 5.45110844103 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.53405017921 88% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.5376344086 54% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 11.8709677419 51% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.85842293907 207% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.88709677419 205% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157235464374 0.236089414692 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0425789268497 0.076458572812 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614928486903 0.0737576698707 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115211735314 0.150856017488 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0745084703308 0.0645574589148 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 11.7677419355 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 58.1214874552 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 6.10430107527 51% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 10.1575268817 87% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.1 10.9000537634 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.01818996416 108% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 86.8835125448 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.5 10.002688172 55% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 10.0537634409 76% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.247311828 88% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5 paragraphs with 3 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: conclusion.
So how to find out those reasons. There is a formula:
reasons == advantages or
reasons == disadvantages
for example, we can always apply 'save time', 'save/make money', 'find a job', 'make friends', 'get more information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
or we can apply 'waste time', 'waste money', 'no job', 'make bad friends', 'get bad information' as reasons to all essay/speaking topics.
Rates: 70.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 21.0 Out of 30
---------------------
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.