Many old buildings are protected by law because they are part of a nation’s history. However, some people think old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
Sample Response
It is a common thing that governments will protect some of the historical buildings in their country, but some people disagree with it. They believe that these old buildings should be demolished and replaced with new ones, as the demand for properties is increasing rapidly these days. I believe that maintaining some of the historical buildings is an important thing and a combination between classic and modern buildings in the city would be an advantage for the city itself.
For a number of reasons, maintaining historical building is an important thing. Firstly, these historical buildings have become the witness of some of the country's significant and monumental events. For example, White House had been the witness of how the American had obtained its independence from the British, and how slavery had been ceased by Abraham Lincoln. Secondly, many old buildings contain a priceless value of art, as some buildings were designed by famous architects or painted by some legendary painters such as the church in Rome which was painted by Michelangelo. Therefore it is important for the government to preserve old buildings.
Many cities have successfully combined classic and modern buildings in their master plan. As they have realised that this combination would make the city become more attractive. In cities such as in London, Brussels and Paris, people would commonly see that many historical buildings are preserved as museums or become government offices. Standing to these historical buildings are new and modern buildings which have a futuristic design. Many people believe that the combination has made these cities become unique and attractive for tourists. As a result, it has boosted the city tourism industry and created a lot of job opportunities for the local people.
In conclusion, many countries are protecting old buildings, as they believe that preserving and maintaining the buildings is an essential thing. Although some people think that old buildings should be replaced with new ones as the demand for properties has increased significantly, I personally believe that some of the old buildings should be preserved, as they have historical and artistic values. Besides that, the combination of old and modern buildings would make the city become more unique and it would attract many tourists.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use direct phrasing Original: It is a common thing that governments will protect Suggested revision: Governments commonly protect Why it matters: The replacement states the idea directly and removes an awkward introductory construction.
- 2. Clarify reference Original: some people disagree with it Suggested revision: some people disagree with this policy Why it matters: “This policy” gives the pronoun a clear and specific referent.
- 3. Use mass noun Original: demand for properties Suggested revision: demand for property Why it matters: “Property” is normally uncountable when referring generally to real estate.
- 4. Make wording concise Original: maintaining some of the historical buildings is an important thing Suggested revision: preserving certain historical buildings is important Why it matters: The revision removes vague wording while preserving the original claim.
- 5. Fix combination phrase Original: a combination between classic and modern buildings Suggested revision: a combination of historic and modern buildings Why it matters: The noun “combination” takes “of,” and “historic” accurately describes older buildings.
- 6. Remove redundancy Original: an advantage for the city itself Suggested revision: an advantage for the city Why it matters: “Itself” adds no necessary contrast or emphasis here.
- 7. Use plural noun Original: maintaining historical building Suggested revision: maintaining historical buildings Why it matters: The general reference requires the plural form “buildings.”
- 8. Use natural verb Original: have become the witness of Suggested revision: have witnessed Why it matters: Buildings can figuratively “witness” events, but do not “become the witness of” them.
- 9. Avoid redundant adjectives Original: country's significant and monumental events Suggested revision: country's significant historical events Why it matters: “Historical” is more precise here, while “significant” and “monumental” largely duplicate each other.
- 10. Add definite article Original: White House Suggested revision: the White House Why it matters: The name of this building conventionally takes the definite article.
- 11. Use concise verb Original: had been the witness of Suggested revision: witnessed Why it matters: The verb “witnessed” expresses the intended meaning without an awkward noun phrase.
- 12. Fix number agreement Original: the American had obtained its independence Suggested revision: Americans obtained their independence Why it matters: The reference is to Americans collectively, so both the noun and possessive should be plural.
Suggested Rewrites
- It is a common thing that governments will protect Governments commonly protect
- some people disagree with it some people disagree with this policy
- demand for properties demand for property
- maintaining some of the historical buildings is an important thing preserving certain historical buildings is important
- a combination between classic and modern buildings a combination of historic and modern buildings
- an advantage for the city itself an advantage for the city
Why this response received Band 6.5
The essay offers a clear case for preserving selected historic buildings and develops the practical idea of integrating them with modern development. The main weakness is that the question about whether history should obstruct progress is answered mostly by implication, while awkward phrasing and recurring grammatical errors limit polish. The priority is to address that trade-off directly and support the position with accurate, carefully expressed evidence.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
The importance of preservation is developed clearly, but the conflict between history and progress receives a less direct and less fully qualified answer.
State explicitly when preservation should or should not limit new development and develop that principle with a relevant example.
Coherence and Cohesion
Clear paragraphing and a logical movement from preservation to coexistence support progression, though some links are repetitive or structurally awkward.
Use complete linking sentences and make each paragraph advance a distinct part of the two-question argument.
Lexical Resource
There is adequate topic vocabulary and some less common language, but recurrent unnatural collocations reduce precision and flexibility.
Replace repeated vague phrases such as important thing and become attractive with precise, natural academic collocations.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
The essay uses varied sentence forms, but errors in articles, agreement, tense, and clause construction occur regularly despite generally clear meaning.
Improve control of articles and verb forms, and avoid dependent-clause fragments beginning with linking words such as as.
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Many old buildings are protected by law because they are part of a nation’s history. However, some people think old buildings should be knocked down to make way for new ones because people need houses and offices. How important is it to maintain old buildings? Should history stand in the way of progress?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.