▶ Your Answer :
In this
given set of materials, there is some discrepancy between the views of the
lecturer and the author, over the issue of preserving old buildings. With three
cogent explanations, the lecturer raises objections to the alleged negative
aspects of preserving them.
To start
with, the lecturer debunks the author's first conjecture since preservation of
old buildings brings economic benefits. To elaborate in detail, the lecturer claims
that they attract more tourists in the region and they spend money and the governments
use this money to develop country. This view is in direct opposition to the
author's claim that maintaining old buildings cost a lot of money and it can be
a financial burden for citizens since its maintenance fees are paid by tax.
In
addition, the lecturer also indicates dissent over the author's idea on safety
issue. The lecturer sounds convinced that the author is making a manifest error
about old building's equipment since old buildings
already restored with modern equipment. She adds that these old buildings
are upgraded with modern wiring and plumbing system. However, the author
clarifies that old buildings have lower quality of safety devices and they are
not accord with modern safe codes.
Thirdly,
the lecturer goes on to expound that the author's final point on the authentic
value of old buildings is flawed. The lecturer mentions the authentic beauty of
other famous cities to corroborate this opinion. She said that the combination
of traditional and modern buildings is beautiful by giving an example of
Amsterdam. However, this counters the author's final theory that traditional
design of old buildings has no authentic taste with new and modern buildings. Therefore,
with these three convincing explanations the lecturer posits, the author's
assumptions are all rendered groundless.
|