求 Romanus修改

songlu87UID: 3226063

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: it's more important for the government to build new housing than preserve old and historic building.


The removal of old and historic building often hits the headline and causes a hot debate that which is more important to our society between developing the city and preserving the culture heritage. I think in our contemporary society, the city construction should be put on the prior place, not only because the new skyscraper could save our precious land resources, but also because it can bring us with more comfort and convenience than the old and historic building.

I believe no one would doubt that the old and historic buildings are often low storied ones that could not meet the need of housing for the sudden increase in population throughout our world. Nowadays, people poured into big cities to seek the opportunity for their career and to enjoy the better life. Because of the space limitation, the best methods to deal with the “population explosion” might be more usable floor area on the same land, which directly resulted in dismantling the old and historic buildings. Moreover, the cost of maintaining the old houses, such as repair and protection, is a considerable and onerous burden for our limited budget, for a long term, which might even exceed the expense of building a new one.

Another has to do with my agreement is that the new buildings that was constructed with the help of advanced technologies are more substantial, convenient, comfort and sometimes even could be the new way of conserving energy. For example, the new buildings are strongly built by the modern heavy machinery they would keep up even in a violent earthquake. And the central air condition systems almost established in every new buildings today, which not only save the cost of heating and cooling but also prevent the incidence of some diseases, such as carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition, with the prevailing awareness of environment protection, many architect have designed the environment friendly buildings which could decrease the consumption of our limited resources by using solar energy, some even could generate some energy to satisfy themselves through the process of garbage disposal.

Some people might argue that the old and historic buildings are precious culture heritage of a country which is non-renewable and irreplaceable so that the new buildings should make way for them. I concede that some old and historic buildings could also bring us with profits with the wanderlust worldwide, and some have significant historic meanings for one country or one ethnic group. Therefore, the best attitude should be striking a balance between the new buildings and the old one, that is to say, preserving the representative old and historic buildings and properly constructing the new ones.

In sum, I believe, in our society with population and energy problems, building new houses is more important than preserving the old ones, however, the old and historic buildings which can benefit us economically or culturally should also be protected.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: it's more important for thegovernment to build new housing than preserve old and historic buildings.

The removal of old and historic buildings often hits the headline and causes a hot debate about which is more important to our society between developing the city and preserving its culture heritage (if you just say 'THE culture heritage', I won't know what culture heritage it is..). I think in our contemporary society, the city construction ('the city construction' – or more properly, 'the construction of acity' is nowhere mentioned in the question. The question very specifically asked for building of NEW HOUSING - the scope is much narrower than 'city construction', which may include building of infrastructure like bridges and roads, industrial development e.g. technicalparks, commercial development e.g. CBDs, and of course, housing development. You can, of course, infer that housing development is a part of city construction, therefore you want to talk about city construction – but this needs to be clearly stated in the opening paragraph. If not, you may give theimpression of discussing a different topic.) should be put on the priority place, not only because the new skyscrapers (Again, as said, thequestion is about housing development. Skyscrapers are generally associated with business buildings rather than housing so you might want to just make surethe imagery is right by saying e.g. 'skyscraping apartment buildings'.) could save our precious land resources, but also because it can bring us with more comfort and convenience than the old and historic buildings.

I believe no one would doubt that the old and historic buildings are often low storied ones that could not meet the need of housing for the sudden increase in population throughout our world. Nowadays, people poured into big cities to seek the opportunities for their careers (why not just 'career opportunities'?) and to enjoy the better  life. Because of the space limitation, the best methods to deal with the “populationexplosion” might be more usable floor area on the same land, which directly results in dismantling the old andhistoric buildings. Moreover, the cost of maintaining the old houses, such as repair and protection, is a considerable and onerous burden for our limitedbudget, for a long term (a long term of what? Do you mean to say 'for THE long term'? orsomething like 'for a long period of time'?), which might even exceed the expense of building a new one.

Another reason? that ('another' is a pronoun. It cannot stand on its own without some proper noun that specifies what is the thing that is being 'another'-ed.) has to do with my agreement is that the new buildings that were constructed with the help of advanced technologies are more substantial, convenient, comfortable and sometimes even could be the new way of conserving energy. For example, the new buildings are strongly built by the modern heavy machinery and they would withstand even in a violent earthquake. And the central air conditioning systems are almost established in all new buildings today, which not only save the cost of heating and cooling but also prevent the incidence of some diseases (CO poisoning is not a 'disease', but an 'accident'. You could havejust simply said 'prevent accidents such as carbon monoxide poisoning'.), such as carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition, with the prevailing awareness of environment protection, many architects have designed the environment friendly buildings which could decrease the consumption of our limited resources by using solar energy. Some even could generate some energy to supply themselves with, through the process of garbage disposal. (Yeah, very nice,but how does this 'environment friendly' thing relate to the comparison with old/historic buildings? Why must environmental protection be necessarily better than preserving a heritage, since both are about the preservation of something? You are too busy describing the environmental benefits of new buildings to remember that the ultimate purpose of this essay is to argue that something is more important than something else – the comparison is not there.)

Some people might argue that the old and historic buildings are precious culture heritage of a country which is non-renewable and irreplaceable so that the new buildings should make way for them. I concede that some old and historic buildings could also bring us with profits from the wanderlust worldwide (So, that means only people who love travelling would want to pay to see old and historic buildings..hmm.),and some have significant historic meanings for one country or one ethnic group. Therefore, the best attitude should bestriking a balance between the new buildings and the old one, that is to say, preserving the representative old and historic buildings and properly constructing the new ones. (Right, but the question didn't mean to say there shouldn't be a balance – it was asking which of the two is MORE important, which means both activities could be undertaken, just with different levels of effort. Again, the question is looking for acomparison – and it's not there.)

In sum, I believe, in our society with population and energy problems (This specific point is not mentioned in your opening paragraph, and notexplicitly stated in the body of the essay.), building new houses is more important than preserving the old ones. However, the old and historic buildings which can benefit us economically or culturally should also be protected.

总结：

词汇 – 很好很强大，使用也相当合宜。

语法 – 除了第三段有些agreement问题之外没有大的问题，句法很好很强大。

议论 – 第一，起首段有把housing扩大成city construction的嫌疑，后面的论述没有偏题，所以估计是rephrase的时候找不到很合适的词儿？（笑）第二，第一个论点很好很强大，第二个论点开始过于偏向于描写新建筑的好处，特别是最后一点关于环境保护的，没有比较。。然后让步段就完全变成骑墙鸟~题目是比较性的，请注意随时回到这个主旨上去。

zh000629UID: 3179919

我想说这边作文拿去考试的话基本上就是29~30这个区间的。
但是，我也是以为最后总结段和让步段，写得有些中庸了，排除那些historic building that should not be removed的时候，范围有点模糊，可以稍微再界定清晰一些，仅仅用representative貌似不够。不知道mpromanus说的骑墙鸟是不是这样意思。
另外，楼主的同义替换确实做得非常好，我得好好学习了。