Someone will adovcate preserving historic building to retend the history of the city while ohers will contend seting up more modern buildings by breaking down old bulidings. In my opinion, some of historic buliding should be returned yet some of old buildings should be removed to enourage modern experience. I have two reasons for my opinion. In the first place, some historic bulidings are valuable to a city even a country, so they shoud not be removed for any reasons. Each country have its unique culture and own building style. Some buildings are the representives of one country's buliding style and some buildings are the place that a famous historical incidence occured. Therefore, these kind of cruical buildings for a country's history properly cannot be broke down. In the second place, a lot of buildings are old buildings. what are boildings? In my view, the old buildings are the buildings that are bulit many years ago and outmoded. These kind of buildings lack the necessary accomadation for its livers and aren't suitable for current people to live in. For example, long-history cities have a lot of old builings in its development and now don't need the useless builings. To improve the living condition and city impperssion, these kinds of old and outdated buildings should be removed from the cities ans used to encourage modern buildings suitable to citizens. In conclution, whether the historic buildings shoud be removed or returned depends on the qulity, histical meaning and culture-bound respentive of the dwellings. That is, if a building is historical bulidings, it shoud be there all the time. If not, the old building is unvaluable, useless and uncomfortable for citizen and unapplicable for the modern and therefore should be removed.
第一次写的,用了29分钟,不怎么样,请大n指点。
1请问我这样的文章属于什么分数段?
2论点有没有问题?是不是可以同意一半,打击一半?
3词汇量很小,写不好句子,有问题又不知在哪,请指点迷津。
4字数288,够吗?
麻烦了。
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-7-9 22:03:40编辑过] |