TestMagic

ruchia · 06-27-2008, 07:14 PM

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

The author’s contention to serve the contemporary needs on the cost of old buildings does not seem reasonable to me. I strongly feel for preservation of our heritage in the form of historic buildings. Old buildings can also serve some of the modern needs and also it would help tourism flourish.

Historical buildings preserve our heritage. They tell us about our history i.e., historical figures and events attached to it. Hence, destroying them would eradicate the importance of some historical figures. I apprehend that our future generations would not be able to learn the history the way we have learned. They would just have to rely on the pictures and images in the books. They would not be able to cherish it. For e.g., if Taj Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, is destroyed, our forth coming generations would not able be to cherish it and its history.

The buildings are the main attractions for foreign tourists. People travel all across the world to see them. If these buildings are no more, I fear that foreign tourists will not travel 2000 miles just to live in a hotel or drive on extraordinary flyovers. All the countries have their own natural harbors for vacationing – beaches, mountains etc. It is for these old buildings that a foreign tourist travels across the world. Hence, I feel destroying the old buildings would also hamper tourist population of a nation.

I agree that the contemporary needs are rising and some people might argue that modern development should be given importance. By using the ground of these historical buildings, modern development can serve the contemporary needs. However, I contend that some of these needs can fulfilled by preserving these buildings as well and may even help to maintain the quality of these buildings. For e.g., in India, many old forts are used as resorts. The rooms of the fort have been revived so that people can stay there but its historical beauty is still maintained. This way, people can cherish the building and recollect the importance of the historical figure attached to it. Moreover, using the building as a resort also helps to maintain it. Similarly, they can be used as museums to exhibit old art.

Hence, I strongly disapprove of destroying the old buildings to serve the contemporaries. It would destroy our heritage and hamper the tourism industry. Moreover, modifying these buildings can also serve the contemporaries.

samarfadl · 07-01-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchia

Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served

Quote:

The author’s contention to serve the contemporary needs on the cost of old buildings does not seem reasonable to me. I strongly feel for preservation of our heritage in the form of historic buildings. Old buildings can also serve some of the modern needs and also it would help tourism flourish.

i always wondered if such introductions are acceptable. i usually prefer the inroduction that doesn't seem as a response to the topic given. i prefer an intro that give a general idea of the topic that one is going to write about.

Quote:

Historical buildings preserve our heritage. They tell us about our history this sentence seems weak, how about "they depicts our history"i.e., historical figures and events attached to it. Hence, destroying them would eradicate the importance of some historical figures. I apprehend that our future generations would not be able to learn the history the way we have learned. They would just have to rely on the pictures and images in the books. They would not be able to cherish it. For e.g., if Taj Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, is destroyed, our forth coming generations would not able be to cherish it and its history.

Quote:

The historical buildings are the main attractions for foreign tourists. People travel all across the world to see them. If these buildings are no more how about "if these buildings are destroyed" or "if these buildings are no more in exisistance", I fear that foreign tourists will not travel 2000 miles just to live in a hotel or drive on extraordinary flyovers This seems a little bit weak, there is no need to mention the distance of the flight or the actions that the tourists are gonna do. All the countries have their own natural harbors for vacationing – beaches, mountains etc. It is for these old buildings that a foreign tourist travels across the world. Hence, I feel destroying the old buildings would also hamper tourist populationof a nation. wrong usage of vocab. we can't say "tourist population of a nation" just say the numbers of the tourists visiting that country.

Quote:

I agree that the contemporary needs are rising and some people might argue that modern development should be given importance. By using the ground of these historical buildings, modern development can serve the contemporary needs. However, I contend that some of these needs can fulfilled by preserving these buildings as well and may even help to maintain the quality of these buildings. For e.g., in India, many old forts are used as resorts. The rooms of the fort have been revived so that people can stay there but its historical beauty is still maintained. This way, people can cherish the building and recollect the importance of the historical figure attached to it. Moreover, using the building as a resort also helps to maintain it. Similarly, they can be used as museums to exhibit old art.

Quote:

Hence, I strongly disapprove of destroying don't use the preposition of after the verb disapprove the old buildings to serve the contemporaries use contemporary need instead. It would destroy our heritage and hamper the tourism industry. Moreover, modifying these buildings can also serve the contemporaries again use contemporary needs instead of contemporaries.

hi ruchia!

i've read your essay, it is written in good structure with good ideas and good examples.There were some sentences that needed to be wirtten in another arrangement with a very few misusage of vocab. i hope that u don't mind my comments, i'm not a good analyzer. hope that helps. my comments are in blue see you soon

would any one please tell us if such introduction is acceptable????
is it okay to begin the essay as if answering or responding to the topic given????
plz provide us with guidance.

ruchia · 07-02-2008, 12:26 AM

I appreciate your comments. Thanks. I notice the comment on introduction. Yes I should think about it. I agree, mostly the introduction of the essays that i have read gives the general idea of what it is going to talk about. Now that you have mentioned I shall take care of it.

Once again Thanks!
and keep writing. [

]

06-27-2008, 07:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
ruchia Within my grasp! Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 189	please comment Most people would agree that buildings represent a valuable record of any society's past, but controversy arises when old buildings stand on ground that modern planners feel could be better used for modern purposes. In such situations, modern development should be given precedence over the preservation of historic buildings so that contemporary needs can be served The author’s contention to serve the contemporary needs on the cost of old buildings does not seem reasonable to me. I strongly feel for preservation of our heritage in the form of historic buildings. Old buildings can also serve some of the modern needs and also it would help tourism flourish. Historical buildings preserve our heritage. They tell us about our history i.e., historical figures and events attached to it. Hence, destroying them would eradicate the importance of some historical figures. I apprehend that our future generations would not be able to learn the history the way we have learned. They would just have to rely on the pictures and images in the books. They would not be able to cherish it. For e.g., if Taj Mahal, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, is destroyed, our forth coming generations would not able be to cherish it and its history. The buildings are the main attractions for foreign tourists. People travel all across the world to see them. If these buildings are no more, I fear that foreign tourists will not travel 2000 miles just to live in a hotel or drive on extraordinary flyovers. All the countries have their own natural harbors for vacationing – beaches, mountains etc. It is for these old buildings that a foreign tourist travels across the world. Hence, I feel destroying the old buildings would also hamper tourist population of a nation. I agree that the contemporary needs are rising and some people might argue that modern development should be given importance. By using the ground of these historical buildings, modern development can serve the contemporary needs. However, I contend that some of these needs can fulfilled by preserving these buildings as well and may even help to maintain the quality of these buildings. For e.g., in India, many old forts are used as resorts. The rooms of the fort have been revived so that people can stay there but its historical beauty is still maintained. This way, people can cherish the building and recollect the importance of the historical figure attached to it. Moreover, using the building as a resort also helps to maintain it. Similarly, they can be used as museums to exhibit old art. Hence, I strongly disapprove of destroying the old buildings to serve the contemporaries. It would destroy our heritage and hamper the tourism industry. Moreover, modifying these buildings can also serve the contemporaries.

07-02-2008, 12:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
ruchia Within my grasp! Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 189	I appreciate your comments. Thanks. I notice the comment on introduction. Yes I should think about it. I agree, mostly the introduction of the essays that i have read gives the general idea of what it is going to talk about. Now that you have mentioned I shall take care of it. Once again Thanks! and keep writing. []

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

TestMagic

Free GMAT, GRE, SAT Test, TOEFL practice tests