Should new buildings be built in traditional style? While the trend of globalization is obviously boosting, we are supposed to advocate maintaining healthy indigenous culture. However, I object to the proposal of new buildings to be built completely in traditional styles. Undoubtedly, we can reap the benefits of setting up a certain quantity of buildings in many respects. And above all, stimulating property developers to invest traditional sort of building has a profound significance on critically inheriting excellent conventional culture in the form of organic combination of tradition and modernization. Furthermore, this project, as a good example for architecture, students tends to acquire knowledge in a much more efficient way; meanwhile, it can arouse / incite their interest. Nevertheless, more often than not, our expectations are on the opposite of universal existence fact, since the overemphasis of local conventional culture, which， to a certain degree， will impede the natives from drawing on the merits of other countries in humility, is disadvantageous to the long-term development of construction. What also deserves attention is that, albeit with distinctive functions and charms, those, existing wholly one kind of buildings inevitably will generate aesthetical fatigue and hence gradually lose the competitive edge, leading to enormous losses. Meeting with the challenge of globalization, unquestionably, the governments should take action; however, it is more crucial that we ought to be open-minded in learning from the strong points of foreign culture with inheriting fine local tradition as a premise.

Can I write that: The introduction of tour guides tends to make preconception come into being. I want to express that the introduction of tour guides is likely to make the tourists have preconception / prejudice about the country they have introduced, what should I write?

Can I write that: The introduction of tour guides tends to make preconception come into being.

whether different wealth background will make a difference to children's preparing for solving probl As the growing gap of the poor and the rich, the influence of wealth has come in for considerably scrutiny；for instance, whether it will play a role in the development of children. Whereas there are scores of supports, I beg for different. Admittedly, children from wealthy families, comparing with their peers, have fewer issues to worry about; for, as we all know, the majority of the root of the problems is attributed to/lies in the lack of money. As an illustration, it is generally acknowledged that the offspring of rich families know little or on misery as a consequence of living in such an environment constructed by their parent to protect them from any harm. By contrast, their counterparts tend to be considerable and have a sense of urgency, in that sometimes they are acknowledged that their demand cannot be contented readily. Nevertheless, what I have mentioned before is not yet sufficient to demonstrate that born in a rich family condemns them to having not braced themselves for solving problem than those from a normal family. As far as I am concerned, the former ones are more likely to be strictly regulated since they will be carried more responsibility of families’ honor, wealth and so on when they grow up. Whereas, the latter ones are generally spoiled by their parents with little foresight. Moreover, the greater living conditions allow the children of the rich to dabble in various fields and entry into a larger social circle, which provides a larger range of training opportunities, while their peers have limitations in it. In conclusion, although children from normal families appear to get more ready for the coming hardship, it is more likely for the children from much more richer families to conquer the problems they will run up against.

Are there any differences between "capability" and "ability"?

Are there any difference between ability and capability?

3-2 the value of art program Unquestionably, the building of the facilities in medicine and sports would be beneficial to the health of the masses. Furthermore, as we all know, only with a healthy body, can we enjoy our daily life, work efficiently, and, of course, be in the mood to purse the spiritual enjoyment. What’s more, it’s the most simple and rapidly way to bear fruit of improved population quality. On the flip side, it could occupy more space and have potential security liability, which tends to cost much more money than predicted.

3-3 the value of art programme As for setting up the museums, theatre and so on, as far I am concerned, is essential for society progress in long run. For one thing, one of the differences between human beings and animals is that, except food, we demand spiritual satiation which it is art that could provide to a certain degree. For the other thing, varying from those facilities I have mentioned before, something like art exhibition is one of the contributing factors to national economy for it can be lucrative. In like manner, since not everyone has the ability to appreciate arts, excessive importance attached to the work of art has its own feet of clay.

Can I write in this way? Nevertheless, if we stay on the current path, those hot majors/pop specialties would be so popular that the unpopular one would be more unpopular. Could you help me correct this sentence to make it more exact and pithily?