Writing Feedback / It is better for children to grow up in the countryside than in a big city. [3]

There is a belief among some conservative citizens that it is better to grow up children in the countryside. These people usually talk about lots of advantages of living in the countryside for children and disadvantages of living in a big city for them. According to their ideas the tranquility of the countryside can't be surpassed for a child development. They argue that there are lots of institutions in a big city that have bad effects on children. For example they talk about pornography which according to them is a terrible problem associated with big cities. Even so, there are few people how believe that children must live in a countryside because growing a child in a big city has many points in its favor. There are lots of good schools in a big city that essential for children development. Not only schools, but also lots of institutions involved in education in a big city. Also, in a city children can pass their leisure time in valuable ways. For me, there is no doubt that a big city is preferable to the countryside to raise children.

First, students in big cities can attend equipped schools which are necessary for their development. When I was a child, my parents and I lived in a countryside named Qorveh. It was a remote area in the west of Iran. There was only one school there and teachers of the schools also came from the surrounding villages. Frankly, I didn't learn much from them and always I felt that I could learn more by reading the books on my own. When I was 15 years old my family leaved Qorveh to live in Tehran. My sister Anny went to a fantastic school in Tehran. She learned music, English, and painting in educational institutions and primary school, the skills that I didn't learn very well in all my life.

Second, there are lots of entertainments in big cities that are essential for a child development that you can't find in an isolated small countryside. When I was a child the life was really boring in Qorveh, however now my sister passes her leisure time in the best possible way in Tehran. My father usually takes her to museums and teaches her about archeology and history of Iran. Also he takes her to stadiums and parks, the places that Anny feels happy there.

In conclusion, although both the countryside and a big city have some advantages that can benefit a child development, in my view, a city is a much better place to raise a child because there are lots of equipped schools, education centers, and suitable entertainments in a big city. Some religious or conservative people always afraid from big cities and they can't understand the benefits of life in such a good place for a child. On the other side, I believe that people must raise their children in big cities and do not confine them in a boring countryside.

496 words

Writing Feedback / City should preserve its old, historic buildings - it's part of city history [6]

Destroying the old buildings in a city can benefit citizens in many ways. When the government organizations or people destroy these buildings, citizens can build new fashionable buildings in such areas. If people continue such an approach, gradually the city becomes new and beautiful. Even so, there are few people how think that an old monument in a city must be destroyed because preserving such a building has many points in its favor. These monuments are attractive buildings and can attract tourists and be a resource of making money for citizens. In addition, they are parts of a city's history and must be preserved and rebuild because of their historical backgrounds.

Firstly, foreigners want to see monuments when they visit a new country or a new city. Only new buildings, markets, parks, or movie theaters are not enough to attract a tourist. They usually want to see something unique in the cities they visit. Almost all of the European or American's big cities have great markets and fashionable buildings, so when people from Europe and the United States visit Iran, they do not interested in visiting new buildings, that's why they usually visit Shiraz and Isfahan and don't visit Tehran. Shirazian and Isfahanian have preserved such buildings and now people from these cities enjoy from income they make from supply of goods and services to tourists.

Secondly, the old buildings are live documents of the history of a city and shouldn't be removed to build the new ones. Sometimes people destroy these buildings because they want to build some new attractive apartments or stores and sometimes they remove such buildings because of their beliefs. Recently in Afghanistan lots of statues and monuments from the ancient times were destroyed by Taliban because Taliban considered them as illegal. In Shiraz, on the other hand, citizens preserved Persepolis for a very long time because they think this monument is one of the most important historical buildings from the ancient times and must be preserved. Because of such a belief Shirazian always have stopped everybody that wanted destroy this monument. For a long time people didn't know the real history of Persepolis, however, recently some archeologists issued some interesting and important facts that they found in Persepolis about the history of Iran. In sum, I think we must stop anyone how want to remove an important old monument everywhere on the planet Earth.

In conclusion, although both preserving and destroying monuments can benefit citizens in different ways, in my view, preserving such buildings is preferable. We should take care of ancient buildings because they can be attractive for tourists, they can be resources for local people to make money, and they are the most important parts of a city's history.

456 words