Some people think that old buildings should be knocked down and give way to the new buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree? How important are old buildings to us?
Sample Response
Construction and destruction of new and old buildings respectively have always been a matter of contention amongst the school of thought of architects and construction planners. Some say that the crumbling down of the older derelict building should be made more intensive and that it should be replaced by the newer ones. I completely agree with this standpoint and in the upcoming paragraphs, I shall be talking about the same.
The first supporting idea of the entire obliteration of the old denuded buildings is the redundancy it has in the terms of adding values of any sort to the ambience of the city or region they are present in. From the monetary aspect, if we look at it as an asset, it doesn’t have anything to provide or juice out any benefit from. It stays as a drab occupant that otherwise if had been replaced by an efficient property, could have generated a substantial revenue and economy from. Moreover, owing to the distending population size, many a time such repudiated buildings create an unnecessary dearth of space and therefore curb the potential development of a progressive asset. Then, reconstruction of such debilitating buildings doesn’t seem to be a prudential and justifiable action to go ahead with as it takes a considerable amount of money to convalescence such hollow structures, the money could, however, be used for creating new ones that would be sturdier as well as much economical to invest on.
Another important reason that would make the inclination more angled towards the ravaging of old buildings would be the potential threat that it carries for the people that are inhabitants of such buildings and even for the people or living beings and the properties nearby. Given that they are old and rickety, they are generally not even able to bear the shocks of earthquakes and are the first ones to get decrepit from such catastrophes. In such cases too, the establishment of the new buildings are far more pragmatic, profitable and much safer.
Although the older buildings of cultural and traditional essence are the major sources to ensnare and enamour the tourist-gaze, the underlying ill effects of such worn-out structures are doing more harm than good. Moreover, the ones that are neither of heritage importance nor are they sturdy or reconstructable, are blatantly pointless to have.
Conclusively, it could therefore be stated that building newer buildings upon the destruction of the older ones is a better alternative, more often than not.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify the contrast Original: Construction and destruction of new and old buildings respectively Suggested revision: The construction of new buildings and the demolition of old ones Why it matters: The revision makes the respective actions and building types immediately clear.
- 2. Remove inflated phrasing Original: amongst the school of thought of architects and construction planners Suggested revision: among architects and construction planners Why it matters: A 'school of thought' is an idea or approach, not a collective noun for these professionals.
- 3. Use a precise noun Original: the crumbling down Suggested revision: the demolition Why it matters: Demolition accurately describes the deliberate removal being proposed.
- 4. Use the plural form Original: the older derelict building Suggested revision: older derelict buildings Why it matters: The general claim concerns multiple old buildings, so the noun should be plural.
- 5. Use a natural verb Original: should be made more intensive Suggested revision: should be accelerated Why it matters: Demolition can be accelerated, while 'made more intensive' is an unnatural collocation here.
- 6. Remove unnecessary article Original: replaced by the newer ones Suggested revision: replaced by newer ones Why it matters: The nonspecific plural phrase does not require 'the'.
- 7. Use a clear reference Original: talking about the same Suggested revision: explaining this view Why it matters: The revision refers directly to the position instead of using the vague phrase 'the same'.
- 8. State the argument directly Original: supporting idea of the entire obliteration Suggested revision: argument for the complete demolition Why it matters: This wording expresses support for demolition clearly and naturally.
- 9. Choose the right adjective Original: denuded Suggested revision: derelict Why it matters: 'Denuded' means stripped or made bare and does not normally describe neglected buildings.
- 10. Fix the fixed phrase Original: in the terms of Suggested revision: in terms of Why it matters: The standard expression is 'in terms of' without an article.
- 11. Use uncountable value Original: adding values of any sort Suggested revision: adding any value Why it matters: 'Value' is uncountable when it refers generally to usefulness or benefit.
- 12. Repair the conditional clause Original: that otherwise if had been replaced Suggested revision: that, if replaced Why it matters: The original clause is missing a subject and uses an unnecessary conditional marker.
Suggested Rewrites
- Construction and destruction of new and old buildings respectively The construction of new buildings and the demolition of old ones
- amongst the school of thought of architects and construction planners among architects and construction planners
- the crumbling down the demolition
- the older derelict building older derelict buildings
- should be made more intensive should be accelerated
- replaced by the newer ones replaced by newer ones
Why this response received Band 6.5
The response maintains a clear position and organises several reasons for replacing unsafe or uneconomic buildings in a logical sequence. Its main limitation is incomplete balance across the two questions: the importance of old buildings is acknowledged only briefly, while highly ambitious vocabulary is repeatedly imprecise. The highest-priority improvement is to develop the cultural value of old buildings directly and express ideas in more natural, controlled language.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position on demolition is clear and well supported, but the separate question about the importance of old buildings is only briefly addressed.
Devote a fully developed paragraph to cultural, historical, or social importance before weighing that value against safety concerns.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response is clearly paragraphed and progresses logically from economic considerations to safety and a limited concession.
Make the concession paragraph a more substantial part of the argument so the progression reflects both task questions.
Lexical Resource
The response attempts a wide vocabulary, but frequent miscollocations and inappropriate word choices reduce precision and naturalness.
Prefer accurate familiar wording over strained choices such as denuded buildings, convalescence, ravaging, and tourist-gaze.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
Complex structures are frequent and meaning remains generally clear, but agreement, referencing, article, and sentence-boundary errors recur.
Shorten overloaded sentences and check that pronouns, subjects, and verbs agree clearly within each clause.
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
Some people think that old buildings should be knocked down and give way to the new buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree? How important are old buildings to us?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.