求romanus修改作文

水果的夏天UID: 3022981

It is more important for the government to built new house than preserve old and historical building.

With the development of society, people were almost using up great land resources. Then they began to built new house and remove the old one. However, in my view, I totally agree that people should preserve old and historical house. The reasons are as follows.

To begin with, old house is the symbol of historical country which historian can help identify the source, structures and tools to extrapolate about civilization‘s economy, work habits and trades. By analyze books and literatures can not visually observe layout of ancient city as well as the design. If government built new house instead protecting old ones, it is impossible for people to explore and know it specifically.

Furthermore, many preserved architectures are unique which represent historical culture. New York has status of liberty. Sydney has Sydney opera house. Paris has Eiffel tower. We can see a variety of building style because they were well-preserved. For example, when government blindly establish new house rather than keep splendid decoration which manifest distinct cultural value. Our next generation would be bored by tedious and formulaic architecture like skyscraper and tall buildings.

The last but not the least, increasing people became to visit historic sits that tourism more and more developed. People would learn from the relics and broaden their horizon. At the same time, foreigners come to look around that increase income of tourism and make contacts of two countries more closely. Moreover, tourism can promote related industry boom including restaurants, hotels, transportation and so forth.   

To sum up, old houses not only make historian determine lifestyle, but also present unique culture. What is more, it can push tourism forward.  夏天     

mpromanusUID: 2565872

It is more important for the government to build new houses than preserve old and historical buildings.

(I find it intriguing that almost all the essay questions I've seen up here are grammatically incorrect. It might be an indication of how people have been wrongly reading their test questions..)

With the development of society, people were almost using up great land resources. (This means people were not using up not-so-great land resources…I don't see what you were trying to express with the word 'great' here. Do you mean 'a great deal' of land resources?) Then they began to build new houses and remove the old ones. However, in my view, I totally agree (This question, as you have quoted it, didn't ask for explicit agreement/disagreement, so it's actually not necessary to absolutely agree/disagree. I don't know whether the actual question has, or will, be the agree/disagree type, but my point is that you should read the question carefully, especially if you're following a template.) that people should preserve old and historical houses. The reasons are as follows.

To begin with, an old house is the symbol of historical country (Do you mean 'a historical country' or 'the history of a country'?) which historians can help identify the source, structures and tools (which the houses are built with? Again, I'm not really sure what you're trying to express here.) to extrapolate about the civilization‘s economy, work habits and trades. By analyse (I think you meant 'analysis' or 'analyzing'. I'm not sure which because I don't really know whether this 'books and literatures' that comes after is meant to be the subject or the object.) books and literatures (As said, I'm not sure if this whole sentence meant to be 'by this analysis, books and literatures can..' or 'by analyzing books and literatures, we can..'. I'm inclined to guess the former, but then again, I don't really get why 'books and literatures' must be specifically mentioned.) can not only visually observe the layout of an ancient city as well as the design. If a government builds new houses instead of protecting old ones, it is impossible for people to explore and know it (What? You've talked about many things in this paragraph – which one is this 'it'?) specifically.

Furthermore, many preserved architectures are unique which represent a historical culture. New York has the status of liberty. Sydney has the Sydney opera house. Paris has the Eiffel tower. (Okay, these might be 'old' in the standards of modern China where buildings last no more than 15 years, but none of these are very 'old and historical' buildings, not, at least, compared to the Notre Dame of Paris, for example. All three of them are not yet 150 years old, and built with metal and/or concrete – the same materials for your 'skyscrapers and tall buildings'. They are more 'iconic' than 'historical'.) We can see a variety of building styles because they were well-preserved. For example, when a government blindly establishes new houses rather than keeping splendid decorations which manifest distinct cultural values. (1. This is not a complete sentence. 2. old and historical buildings don't necessarily all have 'splendid decoration'..would you say the Great Wall is splendidly decorated?) Our next generation would be bored by tedious and formulaic architecture like skyscrapers and tall buildings (Aren't skyscrapers 'tall buildings' too?). (I personally beg to differ with this. If you've not been to New York city, then perhaps it's not surprising that you have the idea that skyscrapers are very boring. If you've not been to Europe, then perhaps it's not surprising either that you don't have an idea how boring all those pretty-looking palaces and chateaux soon become..:D But of course that’s a personal opinion.)

The last but not the least, an increasing population became to visit historic sites that tourism is more and more developed. People would learn from the relics and broaden their horizons. At the same time, foreigners come to look around, this increases income of tourism (I appreciate your honesty but this is basically saying 'we charge foreigners much more than locals'. = =) and make contacts of two countries more closer. Moreover, tourism can promote related industries boom ('boom' essentially means the same thing as 'promote' in this context.) including restaurants, hotels, transportation and so forth.

To sum up, old houses not only help historians determine lifestyles, but also present unique culture. What is more, it can push tourism forward. (and so? Is it more important than housing then? The question is not that you can only choose to either build new hourses or preserve old buildings – you can do both, just with different amounts of effort. The question is about which is relatively more important. It's a comparison, not a mere account of the benefits and reasons to preserve old buildings.)

总结：

词汇 - 有些时候表意满诡异的，不是用词不当，而是用词不清。。就是那种我知道你知道你在想神马但是我看不出你想讲神马的感觉 = =

语法 - 请特别注意冠词和单复数。。几乎是全篇错。。

论述 - 好吧又是一个把比较题写成了描述体的。。问题问的是more important而不只是important所以你的论述多少要体现出这个more来。。

水果的夏天UID: 3022981

谢谢谢谢

猛龙过江UID: 3220220

改的真好啊~ 赞