Your Answer ▼ There is a debate about
the usefulness of old buildings because some people say that it is not
necessary to preserve them considering the importance of land, while others
believe that old buildings should be preserved due to historical importance. Although out-of-dated
buildings would be unnecessary thing in our cities, I believe that preserving
them is an indispensable part because they are our important cultural heritage.
On the one hand, some people say that preserving the
old buildings is not essential thing considering the fact that land is limited in
our cities. Today, as population in cities are growing more and more, the
available space of cities which can accomodate the growing people is
downsizing. This means that we need more space to have apartments for people to
live in. Also, we need to build schools for purporse of increasing demand in
education, hospitals for the better treatment, and theaters and stadiums for
the leisure life of citizens. However, the old buildings in our cities might be in the way from building these restrict to build this useful buildings. Therefore, the argument that
preserving the old building is not essential thing would be justified. (총평에서 길이 관련해서 말씀드릴 건데, 시간이 부족했다면 이 문장, 그리고 본론 두 번째 문단의 경우도 마지막 문장을 지워주시면 됩니다. 굳이 다시 반복해서 적을 필요는 없어요. 시간이 널널했다면 살려도 무방하고요.)
Neverthelss, I support the idea that preserving the
historical buildings is highly important because people can learn history and
culture of their nation through them. Without these buildings, there woud not be not an
opportunity to learn and experience about the history, culture and lives of the ancient period. For example, the Kyoungbok palace, which is located in the
heart of Seoul, the capital in Korea, occupies considerable area of the city.
However, people in Seoul can learn the history of Chosun dynasty, which is the
ancient period of Korea, as well as the architecture style of that period from
this building. Also, they can experience how people in Chosun dynasty lived.
This shows that the old buildings are enormously helpful in terms of history
education.
In conclusion, while out-of-date buildings are
regarded unnecessary thing by some people, I still believe that they are an essential part of our cities because of the importance of history education.
이러한 both view 문제 형태에서 평소에 궁금한 내용이 있습니다. 이 답안처럼 제가 동의하지 않는 의견을 첫번째 body에, 제가 지지하는 의견을 두번째 body 에 넣고, 결론에서 다시한번 정리하는 식으로 마무리했는데요, 이렇게 해도 크게 문제가 없을지? 아니면 제 포지션을 좀 더 명확히 해주는 것이 좋을 까요? (예를 들어 제가 동의하지 않는 의견을 반박하거나, 지지하는 의견이 동의하지 않는 의견보다 더 낫다는 식으로..)
(어찌됐든 내 의견이기 때문에) 둘 다 상관은 없습니다만, 후자의 경우 시간 등을 고려했을 때 현실적으로 어려울 수 있습니다. 고로 그냥 전자, 즉 지금처럼 해주시는 걸 추천드리긴 해요!
|