Some people believe that the restoration of old buildings costs too much; we should demolish them and build new ones instead. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Answer:

There is a perception that restorating restoring the old buildings are is (Refer voice notes.) very costly. These Instead, (1) they (2) should be demolished and we should use such the money to build the construct (Do not use the article the with new and old buildings.) new buildings. I completely disagree with the statement as restorating restoring (maintaining) these buildings brings money to a country and provides historical history’s (knowledge is not historical. It is of history. LR issue.) knowledge to people.

1. Use Instead here to link with the previous sentence. Cohesion issue.

2. “THESE” needs a noun to make a proper reference (these books; these buildings). “THEY” does not need it.

While (3) the new buildings fail to attract tourists as their architectural style is so common, they tend to spend money to see old buildings style built in 17-18th century or even before it. Though restorating restoring these buildings costs a lot much, profit in return is very much higher as tourism comes by them they are a considerable source of tourism revenue for local governments, drivers, guest house owners, and guides. and local government as well as citizens such as cabs driver, guests house owners, and guides add up more money to their earnings by fetching services to tourists. (Your sentence is too long and too hard to read due to use of a large number of objects and prepositions. Voice notes.) For example, when the Dubai government spent $ 1million dollar on restorating restoring Burj Khalifa in 2000, within 5 years they gained a profit of $10 million dollars as it is the most popular tourist attraction. (Is Burj Khalifa an old building? TR issue. For example, the Delhi administration earns millions of dollars every year from tourist visits to the Red Fort, Humayun’s tomb, and other heritage buildings. So, it spends a significant sum of money to preserve these structures.)

3. Wrong use of While X, Y construction. You’ve compared the uncomparables – buildings and people (they). While the new buildings fail to ……, old buildings attract tourists due to their unique architecture. 

Moreover, the new buildings are not a great source of providing the historical history’s knowledge to the people. With restorating the old heritage buildings, (missing punctuation. This is an introducer and a modifier. It must be separated from the main sentence. I guess we have discussed modifiers earlier.) ones new generations come to know about the history linked with them by visiting and on analyzing them. Taj Mahal, to illustrate, which is regarded as the symbol of love, (4) visitors come to know that Prince Shahjahan built it for The Princess Mumtaj in order to show his love and respect to her. It was created in the 1600s and, since the 18th century, (This is an interruptor) after every 10 years Indian government restore it the Indian government restores it every decade to show its charmess charm as millions of families visits it to get more knowledge historical significance to the present generations.

4. Note the mistake in your main sentence. Let us remove the interruptor and the modifier. Taj Mahal visitors come to know….. I’m sure you see the mistake. There is no verb after the subject. For example, when visitors visit the Taj Mahal, which is regarded as the symbol of love, they realize that …… 

In conclusion, although new buildings bring modern architecture to a country, restorating restoring old ones provides historical knowledge to people and helps in adding up money to not only localities but also the citizens of the whole country.