Help me rate my essay, Luschen! Happy vacation

[Galeavira]

It is a controversial problem that whether a city should preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. Some people argue that it is necessary for the city to destroy its old, historic buildings because they take up a lot of precious land lots. On the other hand, some people hold the view that a city should try its best to preserve them since it is the witness of the past. Following are both the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

Admittedly, the old, historic buildings sometimes placed in some of the most advantageous places in the city, so many people argue that replacing them with skyscrapers and apartments would be more economical. If those land lots are replaced by shops or buildings, the city officials probably would not be worry about accommodation for the growing population here. In addition, they argue that a great deal of money will flow to the city’s treasure. Therefore, we can use this amount of money to build our roads, to raise our defense security fund, and to establish more kindergartens. Overall, they think that all of the things gained by destroying our old, historic buildings benefit the standard of living of the people in the city as a whole.

On the other hand, some hold the view that it is necessary to preserve all of the city’s old, historic buildings argue that they serve as an excellent tool for education. This is undoubtedly true that historic buildings have gone through many stages of historic events and witnessed so many changes in the history of a nation. Also, the old, historic building could tell people what happened in the past and what was the past like. For instance, in my home town, there is famous a citadel date back to about 200 years ago, from the Tran King’s dynasty, and considered the last remaining evidence of the feudal period in my country. It is now a place where people go here to remember the past, to imagine the long-lasting war defending our nation against the invaders. By that way, people all become highly appreciate the peaceful life that we have and try more to build our nation to be increasingly prosperous. More importantly, the citadel is able to tell you about the past thousand times clearly than textbook can. If it is replaced by a new building, supposedly, there is no place could be used as an alternative.

In conclusion, the advantages of preserving old, historic buildings largely outnumber the disadvantages. I do not see any persuasive reason to destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. We definitely could build our new apartments somewhere else. However, there are only some old, historic buildings that once you destroy it, you will never see them again.

TOEFL listening lectures: A lecture from an american literature class

[Luschen]

Hi, sorry I did not see your essay. I think you are a very good writer and I enjoyed reading your essay. You do not have very many grammatical errors, but some of your word choices could be improved. You used “old, historic buildings” about 8 times, so try to come up with some alternate phrasings. Overall, I would rate this essay a 3.5 out of 5.

@Galeavira

It is a controversial problem that whether a city should preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. Some people argue that it is necessary for the city to destroy its old, historic buildings {this sounds repetitive - try to use a synonym} because they take up a lot of precious land lots.{“land lots” sounds odd -
“valuable real estate” might be good} On the other hand, some people hold the view that a city should try its best to preserve them since it is the witness of the past. {“since they are a witness to the past”} Following are both the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. {I would probably leave this sentence out}

Admittedly, the old, historic buildings {once again, try to rephrase} [are] sometimes placed in some of the most advantageous places{“locations” would be better to avoid repetition from “placed”} in the city, so many people argue that replacing them with skyscrapers and apartments would be more economical.{“economical” means inexpensive - maybe “would make more economic sense” might be better} If those land lots {just “lots”, but that usually refers to a vacant lot - maybe “parcels”} are replaced by shops or buildings, the city officials probably would not be worr[ied] about accommodation for the growing population here.{this is a bit unclear to me - do they allow the shops because they are not worried about creating more housing?} In addition, they{who is “they” here - I think I have lost track} argue that a great deal of money will flow to the city’s treasur[y]. {how does this follow from building new buildings? make this more clear} Therefore, we can use this amount of money to build our roads, to raise our defense security fund, and to establish more kindergartens. Overall, they think that all of the things gained by destroying our old, historic buildings benefit the standard of living of the people in the city as a whole.

On the other hand, some [who] {or do not use this “who” and add “and” before “argue” later in this sentence} hold the view that it is necessary to preserve all of the city’s old, historic buildings argue that they serve as an excellent tool for education. This [It] is undoubtedly true that historic buildings have gone through many stages of historic [periods]events and witnessed so many changes in the history of a nation. Also, the old, historic building could tell people what happened in the past and what was the past [was] like. For instance, in my home town, there is [a] famous a citadel dat[ing] back to about 200 years ago, from the Tran King’s dynasty, and considered the last remaining evidence of the feudal period in my country. It is now a place where people [here] go here to remember the past [and] to imagine the long-lasting{“long-lasting” sounds a bit odd here} war defending our nation against the invaders. By that[the] way, people [have] all become highly appreciat[ive of] the peaceful life that we have and [are] try[ing] more to build our nation to be increasingly prosperous. More importantly, the citadel is able to tell you about the past thousand times{what is “past thousand times”? that is not an English expression} [more] clearly than [a] textbook can. If it is replaced by a new building, supposedly{why is the “supposedly” here?}, there is no place [that] could be used as an alternative.

In conclusion, the advantages of preserving old, historic buildings largely outnumber the disadvantages. I do not see any persuasive reason to destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. We definitely could build our new apartments somewhere else. However, there are only some old, historic buildings that once you destroy it[them], you will never see them again. {this sentence could be improved - maybe “… buildings that once destroyed, can never be recreated and will be lost to us forever.”}

TOEFL listening lectures: A lecture from an american literature class

[Galeavira]

Hi, I corrected it. Would you give me more advice

It is a controversial problem whether a city should preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. Some people argue that it is necessary for the city to destroy them because they take up a lot of precious valuable real estate. On the other hand, some people hold the view that a city should try its best to preserve them since they are a witness to the past.
Admittedly, some old, historic buildings are sometimes placed in some of the most advantageous locations in the city, so many people argue that replacing them with skyscrapers and departments would make more economic sense. If those parcels are replaced by departments or buildings, the city officials probably would not be worried about accommodation for the growing population here as the available vacant lots in the city are decreasing at a high pace. In addition, people who support this idea also claim that a great deal of money will flow to the city’s treasury as part of the profit gained from selling newly built departments. Therefore, we can use this amount of money to build our roads, to raise our defense security fund, and to establish more kindergartens. Overall, they think that all of the things gained by destroying our historic constructions ameliorate the standard of living of the people in the city as a whole.
On the other hand, some hold the view that it is necessary to preserve all of the city’s old, historic building argue that they serve as an excellent tool for education. It is undoubtedly true that historic buildings have gone through many stages of historic periods and witnessed so many changes in the history of a nation. Also, those buildings could tell people what happened in the past and what the past was like. For instance, in my hometown, there is a famous citadel dating back to about 200 year ago, from the Tran King’s dynasty, and considered the last remaining evidence of the feudal period in my country. It is now a place where people here go to remember the past and to imagine the challenging and bloody wars defending our nation against the invaders. By the way, people have all become appreciative of the peaceful life that we have and are trying more to build our nation to be increasingly prosperous. More importantly, the citadel is able to tell you about the past by far clearly than a textbook can. If it is replaced by a new building, there is no place that could be used as an alternative.
In conclusion, the advantages of preserving old, historic buildings largely outnumber the disadvantages. I do not see any persuasive reason to destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. We definitely could build our new apartments somewhere else. However, there are only some historic constructions that once destroyed, can never be recreated and will be lost to us forever.

[Luschen]

Hi, I think this was a big improvement - please see my comments below.

@Galeavira

Hi, I corrected it. Would you give me more advice

It is a controversial problem {this is not really a problem, but more a choice between two alternatives} whether a city should preserve its old, historic buildings or destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. Some people argue that it is necessary for the city to destroy them because they take up a lot of precious {“precious” is a bit tricky to use if you are not talking about jewels or young children} valuable real estate. On the other hand, some people hold the view that a city should try its best to preserve them since they are a witness to the past.
Admittedly, some old, historic buildings are sometimes placed in some of the most advantageous locations in the city, so many people argue that replacing them with skyscrapers and departments {“department stores”? or “apartments”?} would make more economic sense. If those parcels {the parcel is the land, not really the building on it} are replaced by [a]partments or [other] buildings, the city officials probably would not be worried about accommodation for the growing population here as the available vacant lots in the city are decreasing at a high pace.{this is ok, but I would say “the officials could worry less about accommodation …”} In addition, people who support this idea also claim that a great deal of money will flow to the city’s treasury as part of the profit gained from selling newly built [a]partments.{is the city building the apartments or is the money from property taxes?} Therefore, we can use this amount of money [increased revenue] to build our roads, to raise our defense security fund, and to establish more kindergartens. Overall, they[proponents of new construction projects] think that all of the things gained by destroying our historic constructions [“landmarks” or “edifices”] ameliorate the standard of living of the people in the city as a whole.
On the other hand, some hold the view that it is necessary to preserve all of the city’s old, historic building argue {“and argue” or better, “, arguing” } that they serve as an excellent tool for education. It is undoubtedly true that historic buildings have gone through many stages of historic periods {“stages of periods” still sounds a bit odd to me} and witnessed so many changes in the history of a nation. Also, those buildings could tell people what happened in the past and what the past was like. For instance, in my hometown, there is a famous citadel dating back to about 200 year ago, from the Tran King’s dynasty, and considered the last remaining evidence of the feudal period in my country. It is now a place where people here go to remember the past and to imagine the challenging and bloody wars defending our nation against the invaders. By the way, people have all{“generally” sounds better here} become appreciative of the peaceful life that we have and are trying more to build our nation to be increasingly prosperous. More importantly, the citadel is able to tell you about the past by far more clearly than a textbook can. If it is replaced by a new building, there is no place that could be used as an alternative.
In conclusion, the advantages of preserving old, historic buildings largely outnumber the disadvantages. I do not see any persuasive reason to destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. We definitely could build our new apartments somewhere else. However, there are only some historic constructions that once destroyed, can never be recreated and will be lost to us forever.