Issue83 [OB小组]_第5次作业 by xiao8686

xiao8686UID: 2266881

TOPIC: ISSUE83 - "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
WORDS: 540          TIME: 00:45:00+10:00          DATE: 2007-7-17 17:15:59

In this issue, the arguer asserts that publicly owned wilderness areas ought to be preserved by government regardless of their remoteness and accessibility to people. In my observation, such point of view is not completely correct and it differs from different areas.

To begin with, some wilderness areas are exceeding valuable mostly because of its scientific values and its role in keeping the environmental balances since they offer the habitats for lots of rare spices. And those merits in my opinion can fly in the face of any economical interests by sacrificing them.

On the one hand, the scientific values of the wilderness areas should be highly considered by the government. For instance, in some remote wilderness, there might be a specie from which biologists can develop the vaccine to prevent a fatal disease such as AIDS, or archaeology could discover fossils that date back millions of years ago and thus clarify the origin of human being, or environmentalists maybe able to find one kind of creature which is the natural enemy for some insects and thus solve the insects crisis for many areas. To conclude, wilderness areas may conserve incredible scientific values that no governments can afford to loose. Hence, to preserve them is necessary.   

On the other hand, preserving wilderness areas are crucial to the survival of all the spices on the earth including human being. Otherwise, the nature might bite back on us one day. Government is obliged to preserve those areas. For example, Sichuan wanglang panda protection zone is a successful preserved wilderness area in china. It's the habitat for panda-one of the most precious spices on the planet. If governments develop this area for business benefits instead, the panda will be very probable in the danger of extinction. What's more, if all the governments sacrifice the preservation of those wilderness areas for economical interests, countless species may die out. Such consequences will not only deduce the number of species, result in the earth a drab world but also put human being a quite vulnerable position in the nature since the food chain would be severely disturbed. To sum up, the preservation of wilderness areas are vital for existence of all the creatures on earth.

Admittedly, there are some remote wild areas where people hardly get access to and species barely survive there. Under such circumstances, governments need to take measures to develop those areas rather than leaving them in their nature state. Such action will bring along a huge amount of profits and harm little. The Dead Sea can serve as a cogent example. Before it was explored, it is a place where almost no creatures exist. Nevertheless, the government turned it to a famous spot for tourism and now it becomes the major income for the local government, solving the unemployment of thousands of people and leading to the booming of a place. The explorations of the abovementioned wilderness areas are in fact sagacity instead of stupidity.

In conclusion, different wilderness areas possess different values. The government should weigh the consequences of not preserving the wilderness areas and the benefits of developing them. Therefore, make the decision that is beneficial to the short-term and long-term interests and also does the least amount of harms.

OB叔UID: 188695

占座先

OB叔UID: 188695

In this issue, the arguer asserts that publicly owned wilderness areas ought to be preserved by government regardless of their remoteness and accessibility to people.先转述题目 In my observation, such point of view is not completely correct and it differs from different areas. 陈述观点

To begin with, some wilderness areas are exceeding valuable mostly because of its scientific values and its role in keeping the environmental balances since they offer the habitats for lots of rare spices. 这句长句表达的并不好，还是拆成短句吧And those merits in my opinion can fly in the face of any economical interests by sacrificing them.

On the one hand, the scientific values of the wilderness areas should be highly considered by the government. 这里建议来几句理论分析，然后再举例For instance, in some remote wilderness, there might be a specie from which biologists can develop the vaccine to prevent a fatal disease such as AIDS, or archaeology could discover fossils that date back millions of years ago and thus clarify the origin of human being, or environmentalists maybe able to find one kind of creature which is the natural enemy for some insects and thus solve the insects crisis for many areas. To conclude, wilderness areas may conserve incredible scientific values that no governments can afford to loose. Hence, to preserve them is necessary.举例很就不错   

On the other hand, preserving wilderness areas are crucial to the survival of all the spices on the earth including human being. 这里应该先正的说一下，然后再otherwise，否则很唐突的Otherwise, the nature might bite back on us one day. Government is obliged to preserve those areas. For example, Sichuan wanglang panda protection zone is a successful preserved wilderness area in china. It's the habitat for panda-one of the most precious spices on the planet. If governments develop this area for business benefits instead, the panda will be very probable in the danger of extinction. What's more, if all the governments sacrifice the preservation of those wilderness areas for economical interests, countless species may die out. Such consequences will not only deduce the number of species, result in the earth a drab world but also put human being a quite vulnerable position in the nature since the food chain would be severely disturbed. To sum up, the preservation of wilderness areas are vital for existence of all the creatures on earth. 论述的不错。需要指出的是：你喜欢用长句，但是表达的却补到位，建议还是用短句，GRE作文高分不是考长句拼出来的，靠的是逻辑！！！

Admittedly, there are some remote wild areas where people hardly get access to and species barely survive there. Under such circumstances, governments need to take measures to develop those areas rather than leaving them in their nature state. Such action will bring along a huge amount of profits and harm little. The Dead Sea can serve as a cogent example. Before it was explored, it is a place where almost no creatures exist. Nevertheless, the government turned it to a famous spot for tourism and now it becomes the major income for the local government, solving the unemployment of thousands of people and leading to the booming of a place. The explorations of the abovementioned wilderness areas are in fact sagacity instead of stupidity.死海的例子好

In conclusion, different wilderness areas possess different values. The government should weigh the consequences of not preserving the wilderness areas and the benefits of developing them. Therefore, make the decision that is beneficial to the short-term and long-term interests and also does the least amount of harms.

写的不错，注意长句问题。