Some people think that a city should remove its old buildings and replace them with modern buildings. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

　　学生在让步段中写了这样几个句子：

　　For example, there may be faulty circuits and pipes. Therefore, modern architecture is preferable because they are new and do not have these problems. However, these security risks can be properly addressed. Nowadays, people have technology to revamp these structures. Worldwide, there are many renovated old buildings that survive.

　　教师修改后如下：

　　For example, there may be faulty wiring and old pipes. Therefore, modern architecture is preferable due to its holistic safety consideration. However, these security risks can be properly addressed with the assistance of advanced technology for bringing the revival of historical buildings.

　　Ø 学生在该部分写作中的逻辑是明确的，但句式组织太过于生硬，意群过于零碎，足足在这一小块中写了5个单句，导致成文松散。

　　Ø CC的串联不仅仅是词的串联，更是意的串联。按照学生5句话的逻辑：老建筑电路水管老化→现代建筑设计没有这些问题→(反驳)但是这些安全问题可以避免→现在人们通过技术就能修复→世界各地都有老建筑焕然一新，若都独立成句很难与前后发生联系。反驳的后三点完全可以说成：因为技术的革新，所以安全问题可以得到解决，以此使老建筑重新焕发活力。这样一来因果联系就出来了，用一个句子就能把意思表示明白。

　　Ø 表达要符合搭配习惯。故障线路一般说faulty wiring而不说circuit，faulty pipes也基本不用。由于这都是老建筑存在的问题，所以最简单的old反倒是最达意的那一个选择，即老旧的电路和水管。选词在于“适配”，而非“看似适配”。