In certain urban areas, there are minimal regulations governing the architectural design and construction of residential and commercial buildings. Some argue that this approach allows individuals the freedom to choose their preferred designs.
To what extent do you believe the benefits of this lack of strict controls outweigh the drawbacks? Support your opinion with relevant examples and considerations.
Given the exponential emergence of many metropolises present-day, the spectacle of high-rise infrastructures has ineluctably been the staple of the contemporary age. However, regulations are relatively lenient regarding the design and erection of such edifices, whereupon culminate in adverse repercussions. Yet, there emerges the notion that such governmental interference is laudable as people's autonomy transcended the recognized demerits. In this essay, I will present some justifications for why such laid-back measures can represent an egregious pattern of development and clearly not redeem for its upshots.
First, governmental overwatch is absolutely essential to maintain the sustainability and long-term development of any metropolis. To commence with, due to economic and wherewithal constraints, architectures have an execrable proclivity to construct low, cost-effective buildings which has been ascribed to the proliferation of urban sprawl present-day. To elucidate, the unruly spread of buildings, along with their bad designs will ineluctably vitiate aesthetic aspects of many metropolises, increase commuting time, hence stretching the capability of public transport. Moreover, an urban development plan should be able to cater to the demands of an astronomical inflow of migrants, visitors, and denizens. Therefore, legal regulations are of sacrosanct importance to mitigate overpopulation and urbanization. Last, the erection of buildings oftentimes culminates in pollution and hobbles the harmonious flow of traffic. For example, the construction of commercial centers requires a colossal amount of paperwork, earmarked estates, and even geopolitical considerations which are only made possible by governmental powers. Furthermore, the construction of residential buildings can cause noise, and air pollution around their surroundings, particularly in noise-sensitive sections such as medical centers or educational establishments. Ultimately, draconian measures from the government are a much-needed phase in the designing and construction of buildings as these vouch for the safety and sustainability of any urban region.
Second, autonomous freedom and liberties can yet transcend the egregious pitfalls stemming from irresponsible design and construction. The first reason being that governmental regulations indubitably have significant bearings on the public's safety and standard of living. For example, draconian measures regarding drainage, ventilation, amenities, and fire prevention systems essentially bolster citizen's happiness and provide prophylactic countermeasures to catastrophic happenings. Furthermore, the intervention of administrative bodies means that building gestation and construction dovetail with that of a pre-devised one. Additionally, the ready-made pretext of design freedom only represents short-lived benefits as its subsequent ramifications are yet to be resolved. For example. a paucity of regulation will ineluctably be a breeding ground for corruption, scandals, and cost overruns. These design-related liberties, without sufficient regulation, will always be pure heresy and the unnecessary squandering of public resources.
However, some people still argue that a state-controlled urban developmental plan would compromise innovation and freedom in architectural design. While designer's freedom is somewhat recognizable, governments should monitor these liberties as they explicitly affect their citizens. Moreover, governmental involvement does not hamper architectural ingenuity but rather bolsters the process per se. Because regulation can ensure that designers only take calculated risks and innovation, thereby averting catastrophes. Furthermore, regulations can ensure the harmony of the environment, traffic and people's comfort in a metropolis. To elucidate, in a stereotypically high-rise city like New York, there is still space for the therapeutic, tranquil benefits of the central parks or the immaculate outlay of Singapore – the cleanest city in the world. These examples clearly bear testaments to the importance of regulation in the construction and designing of any building.
In conclusion, while designers' freedom can be recognized, I think that draconian measures are very necessary to counteract the destructive consequence of irresponsible designs. Therefore, the current lenient regulation in urban development is innately execrable and will never transcend its perceived demerits. Such lack of strict regulation now demands more scrutiny and actionable interventions.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
Errors and Improvements:
"Given the exponential emergence of many metropolises present-day" -> "Given the exponential growth of numerous metropolises in the present day"
Explanation: The original phrase is somewhat awkward and can be clarified by using a more standard expression like "growth of numerous metropolises" and rephrasing "present-day" to "in the present day" for better formality.
"spectacle of high-rise infrastructures" -> "proliferation of high-rise structures"
Explanation: The term "spectacle" may be seen as overly dramatic and informal in an academic context. "Proliferation of high-rise structures" maintains a formal tone while conveying the intended meaning.
"regulations are relatively lenient" -> "regulations are comparatively permissive"
Explanation: Substituting "lenient" with "comparatively permissive" maintains formality and provides a more precise expression.
"whereupon culminate in adverse repercussions" -> "resulting in adverse consequences"
Explanation: The original phrase is convoluted. Simplifying it to "resulting in adverse consequences" enhances clarity without sacrificing formality.
"not redeem for its upshots" -> "do not compensate for their positive outcomes"
Explanation: The use of "redeem for" is awkward. Replacing it with "compensate for" improves clarity, and using "positive outcomes" is a more formal way to express "upshots."
"First, governmental overwatch is absolutely essential" -> "Firstly, governmental oversight is crucial"
Explanation: "Overwatch" is an informal term. Replacing it with "oversight" maintains formality. Also, "Firstly" is a more standard term for academic writing.
"execrable proclivity" -> "undesirable tendency"
Explanation: "Execrable proclivity" is overly complex and not commonly used. "Undesirable tendency" is a simpler and more accessible alternative.
"which has been ascribed to the proliferation of urban sprawl present-day" -> "attributed to the current proliferation of urban sprawl"
Explanation: Replacing "has been ascribed to" with "attributed to" streamlines the sentence. Also, specifying "current proliferation" adds clarity.
"urban development plan should be able to cater to" -> "urban development plan must accommodate"
Explanation: The use of "should be able to" can be replaced with the more assertive "must accommodate" for a stronger statement.
"Legal regulations are of sacrosanct importance" -> "Legal regulations are of paramount importance"
Explanation: Substituting "sacrosanct" with "paramount" maintains a formal tone while expressing the significance of legal regulations more precisely.
"autonomous freedom and liberties" -> "individual autonomy and liberties"
Explanation: "Autonomous freedom" is redundant; "individual autonomy" is more concise and precise.
"governmental regulations indubitably have significant bearings" -> "governmental regulations undoubtedly have significant implications"
Explanation: Replacing "bearings" with "implications" provides a more formal and precise term.
"building gestation and construction dovetail with that of a pre-devised one" -> "building development and construction align with a pre-established plan"
Explanation: Simplifying the expression "gestation and construction dovetail with that of a pre-devised one" to "development and construction align with a pre-established plan" improves clarity.
"ready-made pretext of design freedom" -> "pretext of ready-made design freedom"
Explanation: Reordering the words to "pretext of ready-made design freedom" improves the flow and structure of the sentence.
"innately execrable" -> "inherently detrimental"
Explanation: "Innately execrable" is overly complex. "Inherently detrimental" conveys the same meaning more clearly and formally.
Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 7
Band Score: 7.0
Quoted text: "However, some people still argue that a state-controlled urban developmental plan would compromise innovation and freedom in architectural design. While designer’s freedom is somewhat recognizable, governments should monitor these liberties as they explicitly affect their citizens."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: The argument presented in this section lacks clarity and coherence. It is essential to clearly articulate the counter-argument and then provide a reasoned response. Additionally, the statement "While designer’s freedom is somewhat recognizable" is vague and needs further clarification. To enhance this section, clearly outline the opposing view, and then offer a well-supported counter-argument. For instance, you can elaborate on how certain regulations can coexist with design freedom, providing examples where innovative designs have thrived under some level of governmental oversight.
- Improved example: "Opponents argue that state-controlled urban development stifles innovation and architectural freedom. They contend that designers should have unrestricted creativity. While acknowledging the importance of design freedom, it is crucial to note that some level of governmental regulation can coexist with innovation. For instance, cities like Barcelona have successfully balanced architectural freedom with regulations, leading to iconic structures like the Sagrada Familia."
Quoted text: "Moreover, governmental involvement does not hamper architectural ingenuity but rather bolsters the process per se. Because regulation can ensure that designers only take calculated risks and innovation, thereby averting catastrophes."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: The reasoning here is valid, but the expression is convoluted. To improve clarity, rephrase the statement to articulate how governmental involvement enhances architectural creativity by ensuring safety and mitigating risks. Also, provide a concrete example to support your argument, demonstrating how regulations have led to innovative yet safe architectural designs in a specific city or project.
- Improved example: "Furthermore, governmental oversight doesn’t stifle architectural creativity; instead, it strengthens the process. Regulations play a crucial role in guiding designers to take calculated risks, fostering innovation while preventing potential disasters. For instance, the stringent building codes in Tokyo have resulted in earthquake-resistant structures that showcase both creativity and safety."
Quoted text: "Therefore, the current lenient regulation in urban development is innately execrable and will never transcend its perceived demerits. Such lack of strict regulation now demands more scrutiny and actionable interventions."
- Explanation and Improvement Suggestions: The conclusion lacks specificity and a clear summary of the main points. Instead of a general statement about the current regulation being "innately execrable," provide a concise summary of the key arguments you presented in the essay. Additionally, offer specific recommendations or interventions that could address the drawbacks of lenient regulations, making the conclusion more actionable.
- Improved example: "In conclusion, the current lenient regulatory approach in urban development poses significant challenges. The essay has discussed how unchecked construction can lead to urban sprawl, environmental issues, and compromised safety. To address these concerns, a balanced approach is needed, incorporating targeted regulations that promote sustainable growth while allowing for architectural innovation. This way, we can ensure a harmonious and thriving urban landscape."
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 6
Band Score: 6.0
The essay displays a reasonable attempt to present ideas coherently, with an overall progression through the argument. However, there are inconsistencies in cohesion and organization. Some cohesive devices are used effectively, aiding in the progression of ideas, while others disrupt the flow or feel mechanical. Paragraphing is attempted, but it’s not consistently logical throughout the essay. There’s an evident effort to introduce and conclude ideas, but the execution lacks consistency.
How to improve:
- Cohesion Refinement: Focus on using cohesive devices more consistently and naturally. Ensure they contribute to the fluency of the essay without feeling forced or repetitive.
- Logical Paragraphing: Work on structuring paragraphs more uniformly. Each paragraph should clearly present a central idea and connect logically to the preceding and succeeding ones.
- Clarity and Precision: Aim for precision in expressing ideas. Simplify complex sentences for clarity without sacrificing the depth of analysis.
- References and Connections: Strengthen connections between ideas by explicitly referencing preceding or upcoming points within the essay. This will improve the overall coherence.
Refining these aspects will help elevate the coherence and cohesion of your essay, strengthening the logical flow of ideas and enhancing the overall structure.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7
Band Score: 7.0
Explanation: The essay demonstrates a sufficiently wide range of vocabulary, incorporating both common and less common lexical items. There is an attempt to use a variety of words, and the candidate shows awareness of style and collocation. Some sentences display a sophisticated control of lexical features, contributing to a natural flow of language. However, occasional inaccuracies in word choice and collocation are present, which prevent it from reaching a higher band score. The essay effectively conveys ideas, but some errors in spelling and word formation occur, although they do not significantly impede communication. Overall, the candidate has a good command of vocabulary with room for improvement.
How to improve: To enhance the lexical resource, the candidate should pay closer attention to word choice and collocation to reduce occasional inaccuracies. Additionally, a more thorough proofreading to address spelling and word formation errors would further improve the lexical quality of the essay. Expanding the use of sophisticated vocabulary without compromising accuracy will contribute to a more polished and refined piece of writing.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 7
Band Score: 7.0
The essay demonstrates a commendable grasp of grammatical structures, showcasing a variety of complex sentence forms. There is generally good control of grammar and punctuation, with frequent error-free sentences. The vocabulary used is rich and diverse, contributing to the overall fluency of the essay. However, there are instances of awkward phrasing and minor errors that slightly impede the smooth flow of ideas. While the essay maintains a formal tone, there is room for improvement in sentence construction and clarity.
How to improve:
Sentence Structure: Ensure that complex sentence structures contribute to clarity and coherence. Some sentences, while grammatically correct, could benefit from rephrasing to enhance readability.
Word Choice: While the vocabulary is generally sophisticated, be cautious of using overly complex words or phrases that may lead to confusion. Opt for clarity without compromising the depth of expression.
Awkward Phrasing: Address instances of awkward phrasing and ensure that each sentence flows seamlessly into the next. This will enhance the overall coherence of the essay.
Proofreading: Conduct a thorough proofreading to identify and rectify minor errors. While these errors are infrequent, eliminating them will contribute to a smoother reading experience for the audience.
By refining these aspects, the essay can achieve a higher band score by enhancing both grammatical range and accuracy.
Bài sửa mẫu
In certain urban areas, there are minimal regulations governing the architectural design and construction of residential and commercial buildings. Some argue that this approach allows individuals the freedom to choose their preferred designs. To what extent do you believe the benefits of this lack of strict controls outweigh the drawbacks? Support your opinion with relevant examples and considerations.
Given the exponential growth of numerous metropolises in the present day, the proliferation of high-rise structures has become a common sight. However, regulations are comparatively permissive concerning the design and construction of such buildings, resulting in adverse consequences. Yet, there is an argument that this approach grants individuals the autonomy to choose their preferred designs. In this essay, I will present some justifications for why such lenient measures may have undesirable consequences and do not compensate for their positive outcomes.
Firstly, governmental oversight is crucial to maintaining the sustainability and long-term development of any metropolis. Due to economic constraints, architects may have a tendency to construct low-cost buildings, contributing to the undesirable sprawl of urban areas. This urban development plan must accommodate the demands of a growing population, and legal regulations are of paramount importance to mitigate overpopulation and urbanization. For example, the construction of commercial centers involves complex considerations, such as paperwork, land allocation, and geopolitical factors, all made possible by governmental powers. Moreover, the erection of buildings can lead to pollution and disrupt traffic flow, affecting noise-sensitive areas like medical centers and educational institutions. Therefore, strict regulations are necessary to ensure the safety and sustainability of urban regions.
Secondly, while some argue for individual autonomy and liberties in design choices, governmental regulations undoubtedly have significant implications for public safety and the standard of living. Draconian measures concerning drainage, ventilation, amenities, and fire prevention systems bolster citizens’ happiness and provide preventive measures against catastrophic events. The intervention of administrative bodies ensures that building construction aligns with a pre-established plan, avoiding the pitfalls of irresponsible design. Design-related liberties without sufficient regulation may lead to corruption, scandals, and the squandering of public resources. Thus, a balance between autonomy and regulation is essential for responsible urban development.
However, concerns about state-controlled urban development compromising innovation and freedom in architectural design can be addressed. While designer’s freedom is important, government regulations do not hamper architectural ingenuity but rather ensure a thoughtful and calculated approach. Regulations can guide designers to take calculated risks, fostering innovation and averting potential disasters. Furthermore, regulations can contribute to the harmony of the environment, traffic, and people’s comfort in a metropolis, as seen in cities like New York and Singapore.
In conclusion, while recognizing the importance of designers’ freedom, I believe that governmental regulations are necessary to counteract the destructive consequences of irresponsible designs. The current lenient regulation in urban development may lead to adverse outcomes, making it imperative for stricter scrutiny and actionable interventions.