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 保护野生环境，欢迎大家批评！

返回列表

查看: 1204|回复: 9

[i习作temp] Issue83 保护野生环境，欢迎大家批评！ [复制链接]

win-sz
UID??2113066

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1523
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 3
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-12-28 22:34:06 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Issue83 第1篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！

------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.

提纲：
政府应该保护被人类破坏的野生地区，但是这些地区是否偏远，有人是否可以达到，不是问题的关键。
1、政府保护的目的就是防止情况进一步恶化；因此应该根据这些地区是否被人为破坏为原则，而不是距离的远近：人们活动的地区比两极地区更需要保护；
2、政府用于保护这些地区的资源来源于税收，需要考虑效率和收益；因此不能根据该地区的距离和到达人的数量确定是否需要保护；
3、政府的资源有限，需要保护的地区太多，因此需要确定保护的优先级，应该根据被破坏的严重程度，而不是距离；

------正文------
Since industrial revolution human has succeed in exerting enormous effect on natural environment just for the purpose of more comfortable life. One of significant impacts by mankind on nature is of endangered wild territory where wild species of creatures have to struggle for survival and natural ecosystem is disrupted by human's deeds. In the sense, to avoid deteriorating the problems further, I agree that government should preserve public wild regions where behavior of people has perished the natural balance among various animated livings. However, whether the areas are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people is not the most key factor on the point.

First of all, the sake of government to protect wild environment is to prevent such issues as extinction of species, imbalanced ecosystem and so forth from aggravating more. Thus which areas deserving government's attention is based solely on the degree to which the ones are destroyed severely by over exploitation of people, rather than whether they are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people. In fact common sense informs us that the farther the regions are away from where people live, the less possibly people do harm to them. For instance, South or North Pole area has less pollution or less dirty air than others where people inhabit. Accordingly when government decide which areas should be focused on, it is other regions suffering ecosystem damage that are taken for granted as beneficiary of government' policy to preserve jeopardized wild area, not the two pole territory. In short, it is human’s hurt on the areas other than distance that determines whether they should get help from government.

Moreover, such resource as money, technology, and the like, which government can utilize for the service, mainly springs from tax payers. So officials in government when they pay the resource for the preserving have to regard the maximal but effective benefits on its usage. Instead, the efficiency on how to make use of the resource and which territory needs to be specially protected must be taken into consideration deliberately. If the resource just is distributed to those territories which are remote but without being destructed by people, it would be prove to waste what called tax citizens submit and thus irresponsible for them. What’s more, those territories which need actual help can not be given enough assistance.

Additionally, the resource which government can distribute in the respect is so finite, whereas damaged wild areas by people are so innumerous. What are worth most effort of government are the most severe ones where living creatures is being extinct and the species would disappear entirely due to over depletion by human unless government interferes. With respect to limit effort of government, priorities must be set among all damaged areas by people. If the areas, though remote and thus accessible to only a few people, still keep natural balance without disastrous consequence made by people, government should not intervene in the spontaneous development of the areas. Rather government should preserve those regions where wild animals and plants are striving to compete with mankind for limited water, grass, and land, and therefore need assistance of government urgently.

in sum, government should pay more attention to the areas where species of wild creatures are struggling to survive, and hence take steps to protect them from becoming worse, no matter whether the areas are remote and thus accessible to a few people or not.

回应
0

使用道具举报

virginia730
UID??208873

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3615
注册时间: 2005-5-5
精华: 1
帖子: 25

沙发

发表于 2005-12-29 17:09:03 |只看该作者

Since industrial revolution human has succeed in exerting enormous effect on natural environment just for the purpose ofa more comfortable life. One of significant impacts by mankind on nature is of endangered wild territory where wild species of creatures have to struggle for survival and natural ecosystem is disrupted by human's deeds. In the sense, to avoid deteriorating the problems further, I agree that government should preserve public wild regions where behavior of people has perished the natural balance among various animated livings. However, whether the areas are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people is not the most key factor on the point.句子很不错那，不过好像跟题目的要求有点偏差（汗了）题目是讨论对偏远地区要不要保护，而老大的是“怎么选择保护地区”，是这个意思吧？

First of all, the sake of government to protect wild environment is to prevent such issues as extinction of species, imbalanced ecosystem and so forth from用词不对 aggravating more. Thus which areas deserving government's attention is based solely on the degree to which the ones are destroyed severely by over exploitation of people, rather than whether they are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people. In fact common sense informs us that the farther the regions are away from where people live, the less possibly people do harm to them. For instance, South or North Pole area has less pollution or less dirty air than others where people inhabit. Accordingly when government decide which areas should be focused on, it is other regions suffering ecosystem damage that are taken for granted as beneficiary of government' policy to preserve jeopardized wild area, not the two pole territory. In short, it is human’s hurt on the areas other than distance that determines whether they should get help from government.。。。。这里的观点是什么？我是说跟题目相关的~~ 是支持题目的说法？

Moreover, such resource as money, technology, and the like, which government can utilize for the service, mainly springs from tax payers. So officials in government when they pay the resource for the preserving have to regard the maximal but effective benefits on its usage. Instead, the efficiency on how to make use of the resource and which territory needs to be specially protected must be taken into consideration deliberately. If the resource just is distributed to those territories which are remote but without being destructed by people, it would be prove to waste what called tax citizens submit and thus irresponsible for them. What’s more, those territories which need actual help can not be given enough assistance. 长长的句子我看晕了。。。

Additionally, the resource which government can distribute in the respect is so finite, whereas damaged wild areas by people are so innumerous. What are worth most effort of government are the most severe ones where living creatures is being extinct and the species would disappear entirely due to over depletion by human unless government interferes. With respect to limit effort of government, priorities must be set among all damaged areas by people. If the areas, though remote and thus accessible to only a few people, still keep natural balance without disastrous consequence made by people, government should not intervene in the spontaneous development of the areas.所谓preserve啊？？不是整治~~~~要被破坏了才管吗？《===当然这个市个人观点，不过你自己的腰自圆其说才行吧 Rather government should preserve those regions where wild animals and plants are striving to compete with mankind for limited water, grass, and land, and therefore need assistance of government urgently.

in sum, government should pay more attention to the areas where species of wild creatures are struggling to survive, and hence take steps to protect them from becoming worse, no matter whether the areas are remote and thus accessible to a few people or not.
老大你最后的总结也是这样，到底对于题目是——同意？部分？还是完全否定？其实仔细想想，好像理解你的意思，你是说要分情况吧？在破坏严重的地方，就算偏远也要保护。但是无论是观点还是论证都貌似没有表达出来啊

[ Last edited by virginia730 on 2005-12-29 at 17:10 ]

使用道具举报

I want my life
UID??202445

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1104
注册时间: 2005-3-24
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2005-12-30 00:15:27 |只看该作者

先赞一下，终于看到从政府角度出发的论证了，这次好像大家都忽视了这个词

However（转折后面往往是重点），你的论证好像偏了。

看原题
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

前半句没有问题，政府应该保护wildness areas的自然状态；
后半句呢：即使这些地方常常很远而且几乎没有人到
——这半句的目的仍然是强调我们应该保护wildness areas吧？
题目的核心在于要不要保护wildness areas的自然状态，remote只是其中的一个视角。
但是，你把要保护wildness areas当作默认的前提来使用了，而把重点聚焦在了是否应该以remote作为原则进行保护。
当然，大家文中几乎没提remote也是不恰当的，但是，你在对题目的把握上本末倒置了
相当于，题目的重点在于论证wildness areas为何需要保护；而你的TS是，wildness areas 需要保护，但是我们不能根据远近判断应该保护那些areas——看出问题了吗，要求证明/分析的命题被当作既成事实来用了，而递进条件被当作论证的核心了！！！

好了，就先说这么多吧，估计明天幽兮又要把你“托”出去斩了。。。。。。我就不送了。。。

[ Last edited by I want my life on 2005-12-30 at 01:06 ]

使用道具举报

win-sz
UID??2113066

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1523
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 3
帖子: 11

地板

发表于 2005-12-30 02:35:02 |只看该作者

life，再讨论一下吧!

看原题
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

前半句没有问题，政府应该保护wildness areas的自然状态；
后半句呢：即使这些地方常常很远而且几乎没有人到
——这半句的目的仍然是强调我们应该保护wildness areas吧？
题目的核心在于要不要保护wildness areas的自然状态，remote只是其中的一个视角。
但是，你把要保护wildness areas当作默认的前提来使用了，而把重点聚焦在了是否应该以remote作为原则进行保护。
---------请你仔细体会“即使“后面的含义。原文的意思是要保护wildness areas，但是“即使“这个让步的出现，意味着这些偏远地区也需要保护。但是这些偏远地区真的就需要保护吗？对他们保护的理由是什么？不保护的理由又是什么？请注意，这里的让步说明可以不惜代价的保护这些偏远地区，真的需要如此吗？是不是有些绝对了？我认为完全可以从这里破题，从保护的理由入手进行讨论。题目的核心既然在于要不要保护wildness areas的自然状态，这个是共识，那么应该和不应该的理由就是重要的视角，为什么应该保护？为什么不应该保护？从这里展开讨论，并由此对偏远地区的情况做出判断，这样有问题吗？继续讨论一下吧。

当然，大家文中几乎没提remote也是不恰当的，但是，你在对题目的把握上本末倒置了
相当于，题目的重点在于论证wildness areas为何需要保护；而你的TS是，wildness areas 需要保护，但是我们不能根据远近判断应该保护那些areas——看出问题了吗，要求证明/分析的命题被当作既成事实来用了，而递进条件被当作论证的核心了！！！
--------你的理解有误：但是我们不能根据远近判断应该保护那些areas，我得意思是远近不是保护的关键因素，我的观点：In the sense, to avoid deteriorating the problems further, I agree that government should preserve public wild regions where behavior of people has perished the natural balance among various animated livings. However, whether the areas are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people is not the most key factor on the point.同意wildness areas 需要保护，但是保护的关键因素不是地区是否偏远。既然这个不是关键因素，哪个是关键因素？这样的开头本身就在于引出保护的原因。而且主体部分对保护的理由进行了分析。

要求证明/分析的命题被当作既成事实来用了
--------感觉你有些argument了，我明明是同意作者观点，I agree that government should preserve public wild regions where behavior of people has perished the natural balance among various animated livings. 你怎么理解成作为事实来用了？

[ Last edited by win-sz on 2005-12-30 at 05:54 ]

使用道具举报

win-sz
UID??2113066

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1523
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 3
帖子: 11

5楼

发表于 2005-12-30 03:00:09 |只看该作者

VIRGINIA，讨论一下

使用道具举报

virginia730
UID??208873

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3615
注册时间: 2005-5-5
精华: 1
帖子: 25

6楼

发表于 2005-12-30 12:37:26 |只看该作者

来了。。。

In the sense, to avoid deteriorating the problems further, I agree that government should preserve public wild regions where behavior of people has perished the natural balance among various animated livings. However, whether the areas are quite remote and thus accessible to only a few people is not the most key factor on the point.句子很不错那，不过好像跟题目的要求有点偏差（汗了）题目是讨论对偏远地区要不要保护，而老大的是“怎么选择保护地区”，是这个意思吧？
------“怎么选择保护地区“本身就跟保护的理由和原则有关。偏远地区是否一定保护，自然涉及保护的理由和原则是什么。我的观点：为了避免生态破坏，政府应该保护野生地区。但是远近不是关键因素。既然这个不是关键因素，什么是关键因素？我是从这里入手的。我是部分赞同作者的观点，应该根据保护理由和原则，有些保护地区需要，有些不需要保护。理解你的意思了。。。其实这个角度入手挺深刻的，即回答了题目还提出了解决方案。不过给读者的感觉（难道只有我吗？）的确是有点偏差了。可能一步一步地来会好一点，或者直接从题目观点入手再说到怎么选择，不是说老外喜欢直接的吗？私以为你的这个观点有点“跳跃性”了。^_^First of all, the sake of government to protect wild environment is to prevent such issues as extinction of species, imbalanced ecosystem and so forth from用词不对
-------固定搭配：PREVENT... FROM.....O_Osorry~!!!看错了！！看成preserve...from了，我的错~~

In short, it is human’s hurt on the areas other than distance that determines whether they should get help from government.。。。。这里的观点是什么？我是说跟题目相关的~~ 是支持题目的说法？
--------政府是否需要保护野生地区，应该根据这些地区是否被人类破坏作为原则。我是部分赞同作者的观点，应该根据保护理由和原则，有些地区需要保护，有些不需要保护仔细研究。。。懂你的意思了，可是这后面的In fact common sense informs us that the farther the regions are away from where people live, the less possibly people do harm to them. For instance, South or North Pole area has less pollution or less dirty air than others where people inhabit. Accordingly when government decide which areas should be focused on, it is other regions suffering ecosystem damage that are taken for granted as beneficiary of government' policy to preserve jeopardized wild area, not the two pole territory. In short, it is human’s hurt on the areas other than distance that determines whether they should get help from government.特别是这个例子，根本就是在说人少的地方不用保护，至少用很多的笔墨写这方面感觉有误导。。。。这里的观点是什么？我是说跟题目相关的~~ 是支持题目的说法？

If the resource just is distributed to those territories which are remote but without being destructed by people, it would be prove to waste what called tax citizens submit and thus irresponsible for them. What’s more, those territories which need actual help can not be given enough assistance. 长长的句子我看晕了。。。
------如果这些资源用于保护偏远但是没有遭受人为破坏的地区，浪费纳税人的金钱。更重要得，需要保护的地区无法得到足够的支持看懂了的~~~谢谢 ^_^考虑的方面比我多纳，学习

所谓preserve啊？？不是整治~~~~要被破坏了才管吗？《===当然这个市个人观点，不过你自己的腰自圆其说才行吧
---------恩，当然防患于未然最好了。但我是从资源使用的效率，政府的付出和回报来论证的。人力，金钱有限，需要保护的地区太多。如果一刀切，最需要保护的地区反而无法得到更多政府的支持。有道理，事实上我有点”自然至上“的观点。不过，看你用中文来表达，是由让步开始的吧，后面开始分析，看这个作文的话我仍然觉得有点跳跃了

in sum, government should pay more attention to the areas where species of wild creatures are struggling to survive, and hence take steps to protect them from becoming worse, no matter whether the areas are remote and thus accessible to a few people or not.
老大你最后的总结也是这样，到底对于题目是——同意？部分？还是完全否定？其实仔细想想，好像理解你的意思，你是说要分情况吧？在破坏严重的地方，就算偏远也要保护。但是无论是观点还是论证都貌似没有表达出来啊
-------我部分同意作者观点：有些地区需要保护，但不是所有的需要保护，距离远近不是考虑的关键因素。主体部分我从3个理由入手应该分情况区别对待的。汗......、，你在看看吧？
问题已经找到了，我是很仔细的看了，的确有觉得跳跃的地方，（再次）其它人都米有这个想法吗？汗。。。。难道是我不适应？

[ Last edited by virginia730 on 2005-12-30 at 12:39 ]

使用道具举报

I want my life
UID??202445

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1104
注册时间: 2005-3-24
精华: 0
帖子: 1

7楼

发表于 2005-12-30 14:28:08 |只看该作者

life 和幽兮共同回复

我们重新读了win的文，包括win给我的回复，以及win给virginia的回复。

分析之后我们感觉，我们和win其实是两条不同的破题思路：

——我们在讨论过之后，倾向于把重心放在wildness 和 natural state上，从wildness areas本身固有的natural属性对人类生存发展的作用和必不可少性来论证保护wildness areas的作用和必要性。不管那些areas是多么的remote，人类的生存和发展离不开它们，所以必须保护。（这里先不讨论government的问题）

——而win则是从保护野生地区的具体考虑因素入手的。以remote作为破题点：既然远近不是关键因素，那么在保护野生地区这一问题上，到底什么应该成为考虑的关键因素？进而引出三个应该需要考虑的因素，并且从三段的展开论述中阐明了保护的原因和目的。

嗯，我们现在的理解基本上就是这样的。一开始读win的文时没有读明白，看过win的回复之后感觉明了很多了。

[ Last edited by win-sz on 2005-12-30 at 05:54 ]
要注意休息！

使用道具举报

virginia730
UID??208873

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3615
注册时间: 2005-5-5
精华: 1
帖子: 25

8楼

发表于 2005-12-31 11:29:19 |只看该作者

Originally posted by I want my life at 2005-12-30 14:28
我们重新读了win的文，包括win给我的回复，以及win给virginia的回复。

分析之后我们感觉，我们和win其实是两条不同的破题思路：

——我们在讨论过之后，倾向于把重心放在wildness 和 natural state上，从wi ...

同感~~~
芊芊还是比我会分析恩.^_^
我只觉得读着有点晦涩．

[ Last edited by virginia730 on 2005-12-31 at 11:32 ]

使用道具举报

virginia730
UID??208873

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3615
注册时间: 2005-5-5
精华: 1
帖子: 25

9楼

发表于 2005-12-31 11:31:44 |只看该作者

Originally posted by I want my life at 2005-12-30 14:28
我们重新读了win的文，包括win给我的回复，以及win给virginia的回复。

分析之后我们感觉，我们和win其实是两条不同的破题思路：

——我们在讨论过之后，倾向于把重心放在wildness 和 natural state上，从wi ...

再次羡慕.....
我搬过来跟你们住~~！！！！！！！！！！

[ Last edited by virginia730 on 2005-12-31 at 11:32 ]

使用道具举报

win-sz
UID??2113066

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1523
注册时间: 2005-7-3
精华: 3
帖子: 11

10楼

发表于 2005-12-31 22:02:13 |只看该作者

还是我更汗.......

Originally posted by I want my life at 2005-12-30 14:28
我们重新读了win的文，包括win给我的回复，以及win给virginia的回复。

分析之后我们感觉，我们和win其实是两条不同的破题思路：

——我们在讨论过之后，倾向于把重心放在wildness 和 natural state上，从wi ...

中文你们都明白，可是变成英文，life和virginia就出现了这么多的分歧。一个字：写得太烂了......,汗的人应该是我！再次谢谢大家的讨论！

继续加油呀！:handshake

使用道具举报