寄托家园留学论坛 › 论坛 › 寄托学术类备考版 › GRE作文互动版 › issue83 机经题，请指教，必回拍，谢谢~~

返回列表

查看: 818|回复: 7

[i习作temp] issue83 机经题，请指教，必回拍，谢谢~~ [复制链接]

nickaaronlee
UID: 183378

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 2308
注册时间: 2004-10-24
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-22 11:08:32 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------题目------
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.
------正文------
As we all know, it is the government's duty to preserve publicly owned wildness areas. However, I do not agree that the government should even preserve the areas that are extremely remote and accessible to only a few people.

First of all, as a matter of fact the fund of government is limited. There are a lot of fields for the government to provide financial support. For example, education, which is accessible to all citizens, needs the funds from government every year and in order to enable more students to receive education the government offer more and more money for the education. Also the constructions, the scientific researches, the national security and so on all cost the government a number of money annually. Moreover, most of the government funds come from the taxes of citizens. If the government spend a lot of money to preserve areas that are only accessible to only a few people, the others may consider it unfair to use their money to protect these areas. In this situation, ostensibly the government does something good for some citizens, however actually it may arouse complaints from other citizens. Thus, it is difficult for the government alone to preserve the wilderness areas.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the government may carry out an alternative policy that the tourists should be attracted to these areas. In this way, the money that tourists spend during their tours may contribute to the preservation of these areas, and the government does not have to invest extra money for the preservation. In addition, the government may use the money to make the areas more attractive and let the tourists feel it is worthwhile for them to spend their money in these areas. In this way, more and more tourists may be attracted to these areas and they may think it is valuable to preserve these publicly owned wilderness areas. Therefore, it is not necessary for the government alone to preserve these areas. With the help of the tourists, these areas also can be preserved.

Admittedly, these areas may be damaged if there are too many tourists. The areas stay natural state for a long time. They cannot endure the over-visiting of too many tourists. In this way, the government should try to preserve these areas in their natural state, which is not only benefit for the environment but also provide such a wild areas for our offspring. Moreover, there may be some endangered animals or plants in these areas. They may become extinct if the tourists damage their homeland. In this situation, it is necessary for the government carry out some rules that limit the number of tourists that visit the areas and the particular space they can visit. Hence, the government may assist to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state.

To sum up, in my opinion, the government need not alone to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas. It may carry out some policies to allow tourists to "preserve" these areas, however, it should protect these areas from damage.

回应
0

使用道具举报

fircatty
UID: 166248

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1839
注册时间: 2004-6-6
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-7-22 11:31:44 |只看该作者

占座，一会儿贴

挑战10/22！

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

nksisi
UID: 2101023

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 204
注册时间: 2005-5-11
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2005-7-22 11:51:07 |只看该作者

As we all know, it is the government's duty to preserve publicly owned wildness areas. However, I do not agree that the government should even preserve the areas that are extremely remote and accessible to only a few people.

First of all, as a matter of fact the fund of government is limited. There are a lot of fields for the government to provide financial support.这两句合一起，变成ts吧 For example, education, which is accessible to all citizens, needs the funds from government every year and in order to enable more students to receive education the government offer more and more money forto? the education. Also the constructions, the scientific researches, the national security and so on all cost the government a number of money annually. Moreover, most of the government funds come from the taxes of citizens. If the government spends a lot of money to preserve areas that are only accessible to only a few people, the others may consider it unfair to use their money to protect these areas.这句是不是用虚拟，好些？ In this situation, ostensibly the government does something good for some citizens, however actually it may arouse complaints from other citizens. Thus, it is difficult for the government alone to preserve the wilderness areas. 前面对保护边远地区需要foud再多说点，前提不清楚^_^

Furthermore, in my opinion, the government may carry out an alternative policy that the tourists should be attracted to these areas. In this way, the money that tourists spend during their tours may contribute to the preservation of these areas, and the government does not have to invest extra money for the preservation. In addition, the government may use the money to make the areas more attractive and let the tourists feel it is worthwhile for them to spend their money inon these areas. In this way, more and more tourists may be attracted to these areas and they may think it is valuable to preserve these publicly owned wilderness areas. Therefore, it is not necessary for the government alone to preserve these areas. With the help of the tourists, these areas also can be preserved.

Admittedly, these areas may be damaged if there are too many tourists. The areas stay natural state for a long time. They cannot endure the over-visiting of too many tourists. In this way, the government should try to preserve these areas in their natural state, which is not only benefit for the environment but also provide改成providing,词性对了，可是觉得挺别扭的 such a wild areas for our offspring. Moreover, there may be some endangered animals or plants in these areas. They may become extinctextincted if the tourists damage their homeland.虚拟 In this situation, it is necessary for the government carry out some rules that limit the number of tourists that visit the areas and the particular space they can visit. Hence, the government may assist to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state.

To sum up, in my opinion, the government need not alone to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas. It may carry out some policies to allow tourists to "preserve" these areas, however, it should protect these areas from damage.

快乐些，面对生活吧

使用道具举报

nksisi
UID: 2101023

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 204
注册时间: 2005-5-11
精华: 0
帖子: 1

地板

发表于 2005-7-22 11:55:53 |只看该作者

改完了，可我觉得楼主跑题了啊！
对于偏远的地方的保护没有花钱的假设，而且那里不一定就能吸引旅游，
题目说应不应该，而不是怎么保护（用旅游什么的）吧？不过那个可以作为延伸，^_^
加油！！
有空拍拍我哦，呵呵，礼尚往来

快乐些，面对生活吧

使用道具举报

fircatty
UID: 166248

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1839
注册时间: 2004-6-6
精华: 0
帖子: 0

5楼

发表于 2005-7-22 14:33:14 |只看该作者

我觉得有点问题，不贴原文了，先说几句。
从内容看，我认为这篇文章跑题了，题目需要解释的是政府是否should保护那些野生地区，而本文除了B2讲should外，通篇是说应该怎样保护
从逻辑上看，B1说的全文的TS是“ I do not agree that the government should even preserve the areas ”，而B3 4却说“the government need not alone to preserve ”，那么你的观点应该是同意政府适当保护才对阿？

挑战10/22！

使用道具举报