▶ Your Answer :
There might be some people who believe that a city should
not try to preserve its old, historic building, and rather than destroy them and
replace them with modern buildings. However, I personally disagree with the
idea above for subsequent reasons. First of all, I it is effective for the
government to preserve old building. Second, tourism industry can be benefit by
preserving old building.
First of all, preserving old, historic building is
effective. The government can save money by preserving old, historic buildings
instead of destroying them and replacing them with modern buildings. To be
specific, maintaining buildings is usually much cheaper than destroying
buildings. Furthermore, the government can use money for other plan in need.
According to a recent survey done by a group of sociology majors in Seoul
university, 80 percent of students as a respondent said that preserving old,
historic building is effective. The first group was Korean government that
destroyed them and replaced them. The second group was Japanese government that
preserved them. After examining, the researchers concluded that preserving old
buildings was much more cheaper than destroying and replacing them. This
clearly shows that preserving old building is effective.
Second, preserving old, historic building is helpful for
tourism industry. To be specific, the government can make a business by using
old, historic buildings. Therefore, the business helps the country's economy.
Let me bring up my personal experience as an example. I traveled Japan last
winter. By preserving old building, Japan could develop its tourism industry.
Therefore, a lot of tourists enjoyed their trip. Also I enjoyed the Japanese old
building that provided me pleasant atmosphere. If Japan had not preserved
building, Japan would have not developed its industry.
In conclusion, preserving old, historic building is
effective for the government and tourism industry can be benefit by preserving
old building. For these two reasons I think a city should try to preserve its
old, historic building rather than destroy them and replace them with modern
buildings.
Good (24–26) 서론 -A rather than B 하면 A가 B 보다 낫다는 의미입니다. 하지만 이 문장은 A와 B가 같은 맥락이므로 둘 중에 고르는 구문을 사용하는 것은 모순입니다. 따라서, 이어지도록 rather 을 써주세요. 바꾼대로 하면, '보존하지 않고 오히려 destroy and replace them 을 지지한다' 의 뜻으로 됩니다. -대소문자 오류
첫번째 본문 -문맥상 과거이므로 destroy-->destroyed, replace-->replaced -문맥상 과거이므로, preserve-->preserved -more cheaper 중복적 표현입니다. more cheap 혹은 cheaper 해주세요.
두번째 본문 -가정법은 would have p.p 로 써주세요 -내용 더 보충해주세요.
수고하셨습니다~~ |