Some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than other ones. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In today’s world, some people think that certain old buildings are more worth preserving than other ones. I personally agree that this view is rational in their own ways because some old buildings are constructed firmly and conveniently for living from population. So that’s why I would agree that this view.
On the one hand, this view is absolutely useful for people’s lives because many ancient buildings are constructed firm and convenient for ourselves. From my perspective, these old buildings are robust than modern buildings because old buildings were using brick and solid for buildings, and today’s buildings are used glass and use small amounts of brick and other products for using modern buildings. I think today’s buildings don’t be patient from earthquakes and natural disasters. In contrast, old buildings are absolutely firm for me.
On the other hand, today’s buildings are also great, from rational in their own ways, for example, convince are high and attractive for me. But old buildings are more worth preserving than other ones. If the government had destroyed old buildings. As a consequence, many people may be suffering from homelessness. Moreover, some people don’t want to buy new buildings because old buildings are also firm and convenient for people and they don’t prefer to buy new buildings a high amount of people. So that’s why I prefer to live old buildings because our countries population doesn’t have a high amount of money and our government doesn’t pay a high amount of salary for people so that’s why they don’t want buy new buildings.
In conclusion, if the government may be destroyed, old buildings, government must be provided new buildings. So that’s why people may accept move new building.

5.5

The essay is logically organized and the progression of ideas is clear. However, there are some issues with the use of cohesive devices and the overall cohesion of the essay. The essay follows a logical structure, but the use of cohesive devices is sometimes inaccurate or missing, making the argument difficult to follow. Additionally, there are some issues with coherence, as the connection between ideas is not always clear. More explicit signposting language could help guide the reader through the essay and improve overall coherence.

Suggestions

Use a variety of cohesive devices to ensure smooth transition between ideas.
Make sure that the use of cohesive devices is consistent and appropriate.

The essay uses a range of vocabulary and there is some evidence of a flexible use of vocabulary. However, there are some inaccuracies and the use of informal language at times. The essay demonstrates a reasonable range of vocabulary, with some attempts to use more complex language. However, there are some inaccuracies and instances of informal language that could be improved. Additionally, the use of synonyms could be enhanced to avoid repetition and improve the overall quality of the writing.

The essay uses a mix of simple and complex sentence forms and there is a good range of structures. However, there are some errors in grammar and punctuation. The essay uses a mix of simple and complex sentence structures, and the overall grammatical accuracy is good. However, there are some errors in grammar and punctuation that can be distracting. Proofreading is recommended to correct these errors and improve the overall quality of the writing.

The essay addresses the task and presents a clear position throughout the response. However, the argument could be more fully developed and supported with specific examples. The essay addresses the task and presents a clear position throughout the response. However, the argument could be more fully developed and supported with specific examples. The essay would benefit from a more detailed exploration of the reasons behind the preservation of old buildings and a more thorough examination of potential counterarguments.