Recently, the phenomenon of beautiful buildings and its corresponding impacts has sparked a heated debate. Although contested by many that the matter of preservation is highly beneficial, such an issue is regarded thoroughly both constructive and positive by a substantial number of individuals. I am inclined to believe that preserving old buildings can be a plus, and I will analyze that throughout this essay.
From a cultural standpoint, the beautiful building can provide the society with some noticeable effects which are rooted in the fact the merits of historical building, as well as cultural places, are inextricably bound up. According to my own experience, when I was a university student, I performed an academic experiment which discovered the expensive maintenance of past buildings. Thus, beneficial ramifications of both being expensive and past beautiful buildings apparently can be seen.
Within the realm of economy, the expanse preserving past buildings might increase the consequences of economical issues. Moreover, fundamental aspects of historical architectures could relate to this reality that the demerits of maintenance expenses pertain to the oldest building. As a tangible example, some scientific research undertaken by a prestigious university has asserted that the downside of past buildings' maintenance is correlated negatively with economical profits. Hence, it is correct to presume the preconceived notions of buildings preservation.
To conclude, while there are several compelling arguments on both sides, I profoundly believe that the benefits of conserving beautiful buildings far outweigh its drawbacks. Not only do the advantages of economical profits prove the significance of historical buildings, but also pinpoint the importance of preserving the past buildings' implications.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 103, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ings might increase the consequences of economical issues. Moreover, fundamental aspects o...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 409, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'buildings'' or 'building's'?
Suggestion: buildings'; building's
... has asserted that the downside of past buildings maintenance is correlated negatively wi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.5418719212 104% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 6.10837438424 98% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 8.36945812808 60% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 5.94088669951 151% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 20.9802955665 81% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 31.9359605911 119% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 5.75862068966 156% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1561.0 1207.87684729 129% => OK
No of words: 266.0 242.827586207 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86842105263 5.00649968141 117% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.03850299372 3.92707691288 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.35196073869 2.71678728327 123% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 139.433497537 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.612781954887 0.580463131201 106% => OK
syllable_count: 491.4 379.143842365 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.57093596059 115% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.6157635468 87% => OK
Article: 3.0 1.56157635468 192% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 1.71428571429 292% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.931034482759 215% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 3.65517241379 109% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 12.6551724138 95% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 20.5024630542 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4188463544 50.4703680194 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.083333333 104.977214359 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 20.9669160288 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 7.25397266985 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.12807881773 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.33497536946 37% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 6.9802955665 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 2.75862068966 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 2.91625615764 137% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278366684814 0.242375264174 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935763508663 0.0925447433944 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609678520676 0.071462118173 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155259896241 0.151781067708 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0246847296341 0.0609392437508 41% => 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: 17.3 12.6369458128 137% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 53.1260098522 61% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 6.54236453202 171% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 10.9458128079 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.77 11.5310837438 145% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.6 8.32886699507 127% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 55.0591133005 180% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.94827586207 146% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 10.3980295567 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 10.5123152709 105% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 80.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 72.0 Out of 90
---------------------
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.