Sept. 22, 2021
Should historical important buildings be protected by law?
*Little mock test *
Many nations own historicaly protected buildings by law, but is this really necessary or should the protection by law be banished for building new buildings to offer more living-places? To answer that, this essay will discuss that question, summarize the arguments and give a short opinion.
The importance of protecting these buildings differs depending on the building. Due to the historical identity of every nation, the protection of these buildings are important in general. However, it is necessary to differ between buildings with big historical impact, compared to them with a little. If they had played a historicaly important role in the history, they should completely be protected by law. On the contrary houses with little historical impact should be treated differently. They could still be protected, but the government could set new laws.
For instance, the government could set the requirements for moving in these houses lower. With this, more people could get the opportunity of moving in such houses. Second, laws for modernizing these buildings could be improved as well. While it could still be important to protect the historical character of these buildings, little modernizations could help to improve the living conditions.
In total, history has a big influence on current situations and the identity of a nation. By destroying historcal important buildings, history could also be vanished at some day. Even though more people search for houses, it is not a solution to destroy old worthful buildings. This problem should be solved by the government by improving the laws.
Should historically important buildings be protected by law?
Two options here: "historically important" means "important in a historical way" - they are important because they are historic.
Or you could have said "important historic/historical buildings" - important *and* historic. But I think in this case "important" (opinion) comes before "historic" (I think age).
*Little mock test *
Many nations ownhave historicaly protected buildings buildings that are protected by law, but is this really necessary or should the protection by law be banabolished for building new buildings to offer more living- places?
If you talk about the nation "owning" a building, you're saying it's government property. I don't think you mean that.
"banished" is sending people away.
To answer that, this essay will discuss that question, summarize the arguments and give a short opinion.
The importance of protecting these buildings differs depending on the building.
Due to the historical identity of every nation, the protection of these buildings areis important in general.
"the protection", singular.
However, it is necessary to differentiate between buildings with big historical impact, compared to themand those with a little.
"differentiate" is a verb that already implies a kind of comparison, so you wouldn't use both. "to differ" means to *be* different. The buildings differ from each other, but we differentiate between the buildings.
If they hadve played a historicalyn important role in the history, they should be completely be protected by law.
Bit awkward to say "a historically important role in history", you're saying the same thing twice.
On the contrary houses with little historical impact should be treated differently.
They could still be protected, but the government could set new laws.
For instance, the government could set the requirements for moving into these houses lower.
"moving in a house" is being inside a house and moving around, from the bathroom to the bedroom.
With this, more people could get the opportunity of moving into such houses.
Second, laws for modernizing these buildings could be improved as well.
While it could still be important to protect the historical character of these buildings, little modernizations could help to improve the living conditions.
IOn totalhe whole, history has a big influence on current situations and the identity of a nation.
I think we don't often use "in total" like this when we aren't explicitly discussing numbers.
ByIf we destroying important historical important buildings, history could also be vanished at some day vanish.
Even though more people search for houses, it is not a solution to destroy old worthfulvaluable old buildings.
"worthful" isn't a word. Which is unfortunate, because I think if it existed then it would fit much better here than "valuable". I can't think of a better one, though.
This problem should be solved by the government by improving the laws.
|
Should historical important buildings be protected by law? Should historically important buildings be protected by law? Two options here: "historically important" means "important in a historical way" - they are important because they are historic. Or you could have said "important historic/historical buildings" - important *and* historic. But I think in this case "important" (opinion) comes before "historic" (I think age). |
|
*Little mock test * *Little mock test |
|
Many nations own historicaly protected buildings by law, but is this really necessary or should the protection by law be banished for building new buildings to offer more living-places? Many nations If you talk about the nation "owning" a building, you're saying it's government property. I don't think you mean that. "banished" is sending people away. |
|
To answer that, this essay will discuss that question, summarize the arguments and give a short opinion. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The importance of protecting these buildings differs depending on the building. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Due to the historical identity of every nation, the protection of these buildings are important in general. Due to the historical identity of every nation, the protection of these buildings "the protection", singular. |
|
However, it is necessary to differ between buildings with big historical impact, compared to them with a little. However, it is necessary to differentiate between buildings with big historical impact, "differentiate" is a verb that already implies a kind of comparison, so you wouldn't use both. "to differ" means to *be* different. The buildings differ from each other, but we differentiate between the buildings. |
|
If they had played a historicaly important role in the history, they should completely be protected by law. If they ha Bit awkward to say "a historically important role in history", you're saying the same thing twice. |
|
On the contrary houses with little historical impact should be treated differently. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
They could still be protected, but the government could set new laws. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
For instance, the government could set the requirements for moving in these houses lower. For instance, the government could set the requirements for moving into these houses lower. "moving in a house" is being inside a house and moving around, from the bathroom to the bedroom. |
|
With this, more people could get the opportunity of moving in such houses. With this, more people could get the opportunity of moving into such houses. |
|
Second, laws for modernizing these buildings could be improved as well. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
While it could still be important to protect the historical character of these buildings, little modernizations could help to improve the living conditions. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
In total, history has a big influence on current situations and the identity of a nation.
I think we don't often use "in total" like this when we aren't explicitly discussing numbers. |
|
By destroying historcal important buildings, history could also be vanished at some day.
|
|
Even though more people search for houses, it is not a solution to destroy old worthful buildings. Even though more people search for houses, it is not a solution to destroy "worthful" isn't a word. Which is unfortunate, because I think if it existed then it would fit much better here than "valuable". I can't think of a better one, though. |
|
This problem should be solved by the government by improving the laws. This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium