Writing task 2 9.0 9999 old buildings

Overall band score

9

9+9+9+9

See below C&C LR GRA
Model answer
WRITING TASK 2
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic.
Some people think that too much money has been spent looking after and
repairing old buildings, so we should knock down old buildings and build
modern ones instead.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own
knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Original answer The increasing costs associated with the preservation and repair of ancient
buildings have ignited debates, with some individuals contending that it would be
more economically feasible to replace these old structures with modern ones. I
disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.
Advocates for the demolition and replacement of older buildings might argue that
the expenses tied to their maintenance can be exorbitant. Many old structures,
due to their age and the materials originally used, require specialized care which
often comes at a premium. Also, in cities with escalating real estate prices, the
land on which these edifices stand is valuable, and could be used more profitably.
Constructing modern buildings, tailored to current needs and built with modern
materials, is often believed to offer more utility and be more energy-efficient,
potentially leading to long-term cost savings.
However, this perspective overlooks the intangible assets these venerable

buildings represent. Historical structures are testaments to a city's past, serving as
tangible links to bygone eras, cultures, and architectural styles. They also give
cities a unique identity, setting them apart in an increasingly globalized world
where modern cities are becoming homogenized. Moreover, these buildings can
be tourist magnets, generating significant revenues for the state. For instance,
cities like Rome or Kyoto draw millions of tourists annually, captivated by their
rich history and ancient architecture.
The argument for preserving old buildings is further fortified by the fact that their
loss is irrevocable. Once gone, the stories, craftsmanship, and heritage they


embodied disappear with them. Replacing them with modern structures might
meet current utilitarian needs, but at the expense of erasing a segment of cultural
history. It is also noteworthy that with advances in preservation techniques, the
costs of maintaining these edifices can be optimized over time.
In conclusion, while there are valid economic arguments for replacing old
buildings with contemporary ones, the cultural, historical, and aesthetic value of
these ancient structures is immeasurable. Their preservation ensures that future
generations can glean insights into their heritage, making the investments in their
upkeep not just worthwhile, but essential.

Overall band score

9

9+9+9+9

TR – Task Response nb – GRA and LR errors have not been corrected
Band score 9
Excellent answer.

I would probably mention exceptions – not all old buildings are worth saving;
many are of no cultural or architectural interest and deserve to be razed to the
ground. I think it would be unnecessarily strict to penalise you for not mentioning
this.
You have a clear position throughout and all parts of the question are addressed.
Your position is coherent and well-argued. The ideas are relevant, extended, and
coherent.

The increasing costs associated with the preservation and repair of ancient
buildings have ignited debates, with some individuals contending that it would be
more economically feasible to replace these old structures with modern ones. I
disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.[a]
Advocates for the demolition and replacement of older buildings might argue that
the expenses tied to their maintenance can be exorbitant. [b]Many old structures,
due to their age and the materials originally used, require specialized care which
often comes at a premium. Also, in cities with escalating real estate prices, the
land on which these edifices stand is valuable, and could be used more profitably.


Constructing modern buildings, tailored to current needs and built with modern
materials, is often believed to offer more utility and be more energy-efficient,
potentially leading to long-term cost savings.[c]
However, this perspective overlooks the intangible assets these venerable
buildings represent[d]. Historical structures are testaments to a city's past, serving
as tangible links to bygone eras, cultures, and architectural styles. They also give
cities a unique identity, setting them apart in an increasingly globalized world
where modern cities are becoming homogenized. Moreover, these buildings can
be tourist magnets, generating significant revenues for the state. For instance,
cities like Rome or Kyoto draw millions of tourists annually, captivated by their
rich history and ancient architecture.[e]

The argument for preserving old buildings is further fortified by the fact that their
loss is irrevocable[f]. Once gone, the stories, craftsmanship, and heritage they
embodied disappear with them. Replacing them with modern structures might
meet current utilitarian needs, but at the expense of erasing a segment of cultural
history. It is also noteworthy that with advances in preservation techniques, the
costs of maintaining these edifices can be optimized over time. [g]
In conclusion, while there are valid economic arguments for replacing old
buildings with contemporary ones, the cultural, historical, and aesthetic value of
these ancient structures is immeasurable. Their preservation ensures that future
generations can glean insights into their heritage, making the investments in their
upkeep not just worthwhile, but essential.[h]
C&C - Cohesion and Coherence nb GRA and LR errors have not been corrected
Band score 9
Excellent cohesion and coherence throughout, with no errors.
The sentences have a natural flow characteristic of high band score answers.

The increasing costs associated with the preservation and repair of ancient
buildings have ignited debates, with some individuals contending that it would be
more economically feasible to replace these old structures with modern ones. I
disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.
Advocates for the demolition and replacement of older buildings might argue that
the expenses tied to their maintenance can be exorbitant. [i]Many old structures,


due to their age and the materials originally used, require specialized care which
often comes at a premium. Also, in cities with escalating real estate prices, the
land on which these edifices stand is valuable, and could be used more profitably.
Constructing modern buildings, tailored to current needs and built with modern
materials, is often believed to offer more utility and be more energy-efficient,
potentially leading to long-term cost savings.[j]

However, this perspective overlooks the intangible assets these venerable
buildings represent[k]. Historical structures are testaments to a city's past, serving
as tangible links to bygone eras, cultures, and architectural styles. They also give
cities a unique identity, setting them apart in an increasingly globalized world
where modern cities are becoming homogenized. Moreover, these buildings can
be tourist magnets, generating significant revenues for the state. For instance,
cities like Rome or Kyoto draw millions of tourists annually, captivated by their
rich history and ancient architecture.[l]
The argument for preserving old buildings is further fortified by the fact that their
loss is irrevocable[m]. Once gone, the stories, craftsmanship, and heritage they
embodied disappear with them. Replacing them with modern structures might
meet current utilitarian needs, but at the expense of erasing a segment of cultural
history. It is also noteworthy that with advances in preservation techniques, the
costs of maintaining these edifices can be optimized over time. [n]
In conclusion, while there are valid economic arguments for replacing old
buildings with contemporary ones, the cultural, historical, and aesthetic value of
these ancient structures is immeasurable. Their preservation ensures that future
generations can glean insights into their heritage, making the investments in their
upkeep not just worthwhile, but essential.[o]
LR- - Lexical resource nb Some GRA errors have not been corrected
Band score 9
Vocabulary is used accurately with sufficient flexibility to show precise meaning,
with a wide variety of vocabulary, used accurately and with a high level of control.


Errors are rare and occur as minor

slips.
The increasing costs associated with the preservation and repair of ancient
buildings have ignited debates, with some individuals contending that it would be

more economically feasible to replace these old structures with modern ones. I
disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.
Advocates for [p]the demolition and replacement of older buildings might argue
that the expenses [q]tied to their maintenance can be exorbitant. Many old
structures, due to their age and the materials originally used, require specialized
care which often comes at a premium. Also, in cities with escalating real estate
prices, the land on which these edifices stand is valuable, and could be used more
profitably. Constructing modern buildings, tailored to current needs and built with
modern materials, is often believed to offer more utility and be more energyefficient, potentially leading to long-term cost savings.
However, this perspective overlooks the intangible assets these venerable
buildings represent. Historical structures are testaments to a city's past, serving as
tangible links to bygone eras, cultures, and architectural styles. They also give
cities a unique identity, setting them apart in an increasingly globalized world
where modern cities are becoming homogenized[r]. Moreover, these buildings can
be tourist magnets, generating significant revenues for the state. For instance,
cities like Rome or Kyoto draw millions of tourists annually, captivated by their
rich history and ancient architecture.
The argument for preserving old buildings is further fortified by the fact that their
loss is irrevocable. Once gone, the stories, craftsmanship, and heritage they
embodied disappear with them. Replacing them with modern structures might
meet current utilitarian needs, but at the expense of erasing a segment of cultural
history. It is also noteworthy that with advances in preservation techniques, the
costs of maintaining these edifices can be optimized over time.


In conclusion, while there are valid economic arguments for replacing old
buildings with contemporary ones, the cultural, historical, and aesthetic value of
these ancient structures is immeasurable. Their preservation ensures that future
generations can glean insights into their heritage, making the investments in their
upkeep not just worthwhile, but essential.

GRA – Grammatical range and accuracy nb Some LR errors have not been
corrected
Band score 9
Grammar is used accurately a wide variety of structures, which should be good for
a band score 9.
Punctuation is use correctly throughout.
Appropriate structures are used throughout.
Errors are rare and occur as minor slips.

The increasing costs associated with the preservation and repair of ancient
buildings have ignited debates, with some individuals contending that it would be
more economically feasible to replace these old structures with modern ones. I
disagree with this proposal, despite acknowledging the reasons for it.
Advocates for the demolition and replacement of older buildings might argue that
the expenses tied to their maintenance can be exorbitant. Many old structures,
due to their age and the materials originally used, require specialized care which
often comes at a premium. Also, in cities with escalating real estate prices, the
land on which these edifices stand is valuable, and could be used more profitably.
Constructing modern buildings, tailored to current needs and built with modern
materials, is often believed to offer more utility and be more energy-efficient,
potentially leading to long-term cost savings.
However, this perspective overlooks the intangible assets these venerable
buildings represent. Historical structures are testaments to a city's past, serving as
tangible links to bygone eras, cultures, and architectural styles. They also give
cities a unique identity, setting them apart in an increasingly globalized world
where modern cities are becoming homogenized. Moreover, these buildings can
be tourist magnets, generating significant revenues for the state. For instance,


cities like Rome or Kyoto draw millions of tourists annually, captivated by their

rich history and ancient architecture.
The argument for preserving old buildings is further fortified by the fact that their
loss is irrevocable. Once gone, the stories, craftsmanship, and heritage they
embodied disappear with them. Replacing them with modern structures might
meet current utilitarian needs, but at the expense of erasing a segment of cultural
history. It is also noteworthy that with advances in preservation techniques, the
costs of maintaining these edifices can be optimized over time.
In conclusion, while there are valid economic arguments for replacing old
buildings with contemporary ones, the cultural, historical, and aesthetic value of
these ancient structures is immeasurable. Their preservation ensures that future
generations can glean insights into their heritage, making the investments in their
upkeep not just worthwhile, but essential.