▶ Your Answer : It
is debatable whether it is better for city to try to preserve its old, historic
building rather that destroy them and replace them with modern buildings. This
is an intriguing question because opinions concerning this issue can be different
depending on the individual perspectives. In my opinion, however, I support
that it is beneficial for city to protect its old and historic constrctures
than destroy and replace them with comtemporary buildings for the following
reason. First of all, governments should
preserve its historic construction to avoid adding pressure on their already
busy schedule. To be specific, destroying old and meaningful buildings consumes
a lot of time and energy, which makes people who work for governments tired and
inefficient. Many governments today are busy with their schedule full of tasks
and responsibilities. They can successfully multitask and stay focused at the
same time only if they keep a balance in their daily schedules. Also, workers
that belong to governments might suffer from blame for eliminating historic and
old-fashioned building. it keep the government from effectively working for
citizen. To illustrate, the government of Korea tried to destroy its historic
constructure in order to build new facility. Although this building was old and
destroyed by weathering, the citizen of Korea protested against the government
because this building is meaningful and destroying this construture spend a lot
of money. Thus, the government decided to remain the buildings. Through this
experience, I realized that it is beneficial for city to preserve its old buildings
because it requires a variety of energy and money. Hence, this shows that it is
better for city to remain its old-fashioned and historic building than to eliminate
this building.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that preserving
its old buildings is good for city. All things considered, it is my belief that
my argument regarding this topic has been effectively and precisely delivered
with the reason mentioned above. Never should we forget that this issue may have a huge impact on the future.
Fair: 17~23 점수: 20 시간 내로 다 서술하는 것 이 독립형 에세이에서 가장 중요한 거 같습니다. 지금 이 에세이 같은 경우는 한 단락에 너무나 많은 정보를 다 다루려고 하고 있습니다. 이렇게 장황하게 에세이를 서술하여서 시간에 쫒기는 것 보다는 간결하게 문장들을 표현 하면서 이유에 적절한 문장들만 서술하는 것이 독립형 에세이에서는 꼭 필요할 거 같습니다. 이 부분을 잘 숙지하며서 에세이를 서술하시길 바랍니다. 수고많으셨습니다.
시간내로 못쓴 두번째 본론입니다 (점수에 포함하지 말아주세용!!) In
addition, governments should not demolish ancient and important structure
because it leads to added stress levels. To be specific, devastating
constructions requires a lot of investment and time, which hinders public
officials from building a quality life and productively work for their citizens.
Stress is the main stress of disease and dissatisfying lives. Thus, people in
modern society should actively find ways to reduce stress and stay healthy. For
instance, Marry, who is my best friend and work in government of Korea,
participated in plans to demolish Korean historic structure called Gwanghwamun.
The more plans progressed, the more she get stressed out. Eventually, during
the plans, she was hospitalized for stress. Through this experience, I realized
that destroying historic buildings requested various sacrifice of government
employees. Therefore, this proves that it is better for city to conserve
ancient and historically important structures than to withdraw the building in
order to lead to healthy and fulfilling worker’s condition. |