新g issue 10 求拍~
本帖最后由 ykhjy 于 2012-1-26 23:30 编辑10) Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.
Since life is a miracle and all is dependent on each other in the nature, it is reasonable for nations to pass laws to preserve wilderness areas. Admittedly, it is also important to develop economy since economic development is also an important part in the social development. Thus it will be the best if the two can be balanced.
Life is equal, and we human being is just a part of natural chain, however, the original vulnerable ecological balance is being destroyed by our greedy and ignorance. Under the humans' power, the ecological balance that the nature organized for several billion years has been broken. More and more species are in danger to become extinct since people's many behaviors which have detrimental for species such as deforestation, land reclamation, killing of animals... And among these behaviors which accelerate for species' dieing out, the most direct factor should be destroying species' habits.
People's behavior of deforestation, make species in the forest losing their habit, thus those species tend to become extinct. For instance, as tropical rain forests are disappearing gradually, animals living there are also gradually dieing out. People's behavior of something about the ocean such as land reclamation, which have been destroying wetlands, bringing about detrimental effects for the ocean's ecological balance. The matter of oil spill in gulf of Mexico, Japan's killing a large number of whales ignoring the international community's strong condemning... All these lead more and more species in the ocean to become extinct.
From the industry revolution, although people have a powerful strength to change the nature for economic development, what the following are various forms of pollution such as air pollution, water pollution,solid pollution and so on. All these bring a large detrimental effect to the earth where people depend on to live. And people are revenged by the nature: air pollution has a bad effect on people's health; the climate's always changing make people uncomfortable; the trend of submerged land as the sea level has been rising threatens people who live near those lands to give up their homes...
Admittedly, people are for economic development to do those behaviors which have negative effect to the nature, for example, someone killing animals for making large profits via the animals' furs, and economic development is an indispensable part of social development since material is the foundation, therefore it seems understandable to develop economy at the cost of destroying the nature. However, the cost of destroying the nature is also expansive which may require our lives in return. Thus the best way is to make a balance between them. For some areas where species are so rich that they are less likely to become extinct in the short run, while economic development there is so demanding that people there even cannot meet their basic need to eat, we can pay more attention to develop the economy other than preserving some wilderness areas where are not so important right now.
In conclusion, to some extent, it is reasonable for nations to pass laws to preserve wilderness areas, since it is because not only that people should not deprive any species' right to life, but people's life also depend on this vulnerable ecological balance. However, sometimes for urgent economic development, it is necessary to pay the cost of destroying the nature. And the best way is to make a balance between them, thus making the development be sustainable. OK，先来看题目
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
这个题目涉及三个问题：
一是保护生态区的必要性问题（蓝色字体的部分）
二是保护生态区所牵涉的经济发展的问题（绿色字体的部分）
三是保护生态区的方法（红色字体的部分）
那么你思考和论述的方向也应由这三点发散出去：
一：为什么要保护生态区？生态区对人类的意义？
二：保护生态区和获得经济收益之间的矛盾之处在哪里？它们是否是不兼容的，非此即彼的？
三：如何处理以上两个问题？题目提出的通过立法的手段能否解决以上问题？
对于这些问题，你给出什么样的答案无所谓，关键是你要通过这三个方面的论述展示出你周全的思考。
然后看文章
第一段
Since life is a miracle and all is dependent on each other in the nature, it is reasonable for nations to pass laws to preserve wilderness areas. Admittedly, it is also important to develop economy since economic development is also an important part in the social development. Thus it will be the best if the two can be balanced.你的第一段给出了四个概念，我用黄色给你标出来了，从这几个关键词中，就可以看出你对题目的理解是有片面和肤浅的因素在里头的。首先，你说因为生命珍贵，所以要保护生态区，你潜在的意思就是说保护生态区的意义同生命等同起来，那么你在概念上就产生了混淆，你缩小了wilderness areas一次的含义。其次，你的第一句和第二句之间的没有逻辑联系，虽然你摆了一个Admittedly，但不是摆出来关系词你就能把逻辑搞明白的，作为生态区和经济，这两个含义完全不同的概念，你并没有说清楚它们之间的矛盾关系。最后，你的社会发展的概念，题目中完全没有提出，完全属于无中生有。从你的第一段，阅读者就可以看出你的深浅，但是你的第一段并没有给题目一个很好的回应。
先改到这吧，太晚了。我不是作文版的版主，水平也不行，观点仅代表我自己。大致看了一下，个人觉得文章的body段有些思路不清。以后有时间再把这篇文章改完吧。
在此重申，水平有限，个人观点，仅限娱乐。 2# dandeliontt
多谢指点！~:loveliness:
页:
[1]