▶ Your Answer :
Some people think that it is more desirable for government to invest money budgets in constructing new structures. In my opinion, however, conserving historic or traditional buildings is wiser. I will this way, which I will illustrate two main reasons explore in the following the essay.
To begin with, preserving historic or traditional structures makes it possible for future generation living in the country to learn about valuable histories and tradition in their own country. This is mainly because the old buildings contain their own build-in worth are deeply related to nation's histories. Obviously, I am willing to admit that constructing new buildings significantly affects citizens' convenient lives; nonetheless, nothing is as important as handing down valuable cultures and traditions. For example, a couple of decades ago, Kyung Buk Koong, one of the most traditional structures in Korea, went through a big accident-a large fire. Because the entire building was seriously damaged, the government decided to break down the traditional building and construct a new city's facility, known for a public library. However, some public figures and citizens' groups disagreed with the policy since if carry out the policy, many of young peoples and future generations in the country might lose the chance to learn about the history on the Kyung Buk Koong. They instantly appealed these issues to public opinion, and eventually having government change the policy. Subsequently, government canceled building new buildings, and started to rather renovated and have kept for preserving the valuable structures well up to now. As a result, future generations living in the city have been gaining valuable experiences and knowledge which is full with valuable histories and unique traditions through the old building.
On top of that, preserving tradition buildings enables both the government and citizens to save money. This is due to the fact that compared to constructing new structures, preserving the traditional buildings is a much more cost-effective method. To be more specific, all the government had to do is only managing these buildings regularly and simply renovate in the case damaged by various factors. What is more, the saving of budgets affects an ordinary citizens' daily life in the positive way. For example, my city, Busan, one of the most beautiful port city of Korea, have continued to try preserving the old buildings in order to save city budgets. Thus, the government subsidy and the budgets saved in my city have been utilized in improving citizens' living standards, such as, medical care services or social security systems. Ultimately, just like my city's case, it is obvious that a good way to save the budgets in a city is preserving the traditional buildings, eventually, contributing considerably to making good living of citizens.
Taking all of these things into account, what I advocate boils down to the assert that it is wiser for government to preserve the historic and traditional buildings than investing in building new structures since not only does it enable future generations to provide a good chance to learn about nation's histories and traditions, but it also save the city budgets, leading to making better living of citizens.
| 채점기준표 | Grammar | Contents | Example | Coherence | 점수 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | Score | Fair 18-22 | - 분량이 상당히 긴 편이지만, 어색하거나 제외되어야할 부분은 적은 것 같아요. 즉, 군더더기문장이 없어 좋습니다. - 다만 문장이나 어휘가 제한적이라 반복되는 느낌이 있고, 두 번째 예시의 경우, 다소 old building에 대한 정의가 다소 모호한 부분이 있습니다.
|
|