求助：修改作文，thanks

lsj19851219UID: 2776783

41 Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

There is a hit discussion concerning whether the demands of human for farmland, housing, and industry are more essential than saving land for animals being at the edge of extinction. Factually, an increasing number of people believe that human beings are suffering from the negative aspects brought by environmental issues. However, contrary to this opinion, I strongly agree with the idea that using land for farming, housing, as well as industrialization has solved Food issue and improved individuals’ living condition, even though there may be one or two advantage of saving land.

To begin with, most of people have reaped various profits from terminating starvation by exploring more land to farm. Recently, researcher at Peking University paid attention to the population one hundred years ago. They analyzed the statistical material and claimed that it is the lack of farmland that leads to the sharp declining of population and disappearance of civilization at that time. Compared with the situation, isn't it true that modern civilized society is on the basis of sufficient farmland?  It is indeed an example of how farmland alters the hardship of human beings in the undoubted way for the development of human beings.

Secondly, utilizing land to build houses and develop industry can benefit people from establishing entertainment facilities and increasing residents’ income. Individuals can feel relaxed when rambling in city parks, watching the brilliant films and appreciating the melodic concert. And residents no longer worry about the problem of housing. It is conducive to improve mental heath of citizens. Moreover, with the advance of industrialization, there are an increasing number of job opportunities for people who have more chance to earn more money. In other words, the rise of consuming capacity also results in the sharp increase of tax of a government which can improve human living level.

Finally, it is admitted that some positive aspects of saving land for endangered animals are manifest. The diversity of species plays a vital role in ecology balance. Without realization of saving land from farming or industrialization, the food chain of species including human beings might be destructed by our own behaviors. From the long-term view, saving lands might decrease the human-developing rate, but it is helpful to our decedents developing. For instance, most of countries establish environment preserving areas by banning any types of industrial usage.

Numerous although the favorable points that saving land leads to are, they cannot compete with the benefits that using land for human development brings about, if resolving Food issue and providing more convenience to people is taken to consideration. In sum, I surely maintain that using land for farmland, housing and industry is a reasonable choice.

mpromanusUID: 2565872

There is a hit? discussion concerning whether the demands of human for farmland, housing, and industry are more essential than saving land for animals being at the edge of extinction. Factually, an increasing number of people believe that human beings are suffering from the negative aspects brought by environmental issues (What do 'environmental issues' have to do with the first sentence?). However, contrary to this opinion, I strongly agree with the idea that using land for farming, housing, as well as industrialization has solved Food issue (What issue is a 'food issue'?) and improved individuals’ living condition, even though there may be one or two advantage of saving land (The question is specific about saving land 'for endangered animals'. By leaving out this detail, you might suffer from an overly generalized discussion.).

To begin with, most of people have reaped various profits from terminating starvation? (Isn't hunger still a widespread problem? It's just not clear at all what you mean by 'terminating starvation', in that this expression doesn't make much realistic sense.) by exploring more land to farm. Recently, researcher at Peking University paid attention to the population one hundred years ago. They analyzed the statistical materials and claimed that it is the lack of farmland that leads to the sharp decline of population and disappearance of civilizations? at that time (FYI: 100 years ago would be the time of Napolean and the start of the Qing dynasty's decline in China. It's one of the most chaotic times in recent history, yes, but probably not 'disappearance of civilizations'.). Compared with the situation, isn't it true that the modern civilized society is on the basis of sufficient farmland (The 'modern civilized society' depends on many things. We didn't have proper flush toilets 100 years ago either - so what makes you say that our current society is solely based on sufficient farmland?)?  It is indeed an example of how farmland alters the hardship? (How do you 'alter' a hardship? By bending it into something else? I can hardly imagine.) of human beings in the undoubted way for the development of human beings.

Secondly, utilizing land to build houses and develop industry can benefit people from establishing entertainment facilities and increasing residents’ incomes. Individuals can feel relaxed when rambling? in city parks, watching the brilliant films and appreciating the melodic concerts. And residents no longer worry about the problem of housing. It is conducive to improve mental health of citizens. (This sounds like you're implying that housing would be adequate and everyone will be happy if we save all the land for housing/industrial purposes. I could politely brush this off as naivete but I think I'm starting to see why your writings are hard to understand. More on this in the summary.) Moreover, with the advance of industrialization, there are an increasing number of job opportunities for people who have more chances to earn more money. In other words (The sentence after this doesn't seem to be saying the same thing as the sentence before.), the rise of consuming capacity also results in the sharp increase of tax of a government which can improve human living level conditions (Don't try to translate 人居水平. Some phrases in modern Chinese are by nature grammatically awkward for stylistic purposes, so if you try to translate them, you'll likely end up with something very awkward too.).

Finally, it is admitted that some positive aspects of saving land for endangered animals are manifest. The diversity of species plays a vital role in ecological balance. Without realization? of saving land from farming or industrialization, the food chain of species including human beings might be destructed by our own behaviors. From the long-term view, saving lands might decrease the human-developing rate of human development, but it is helpful to our decedents' development. For instance, most of countries establish environment preserving areas by banning any all types of industrial usage. (A note on giving examples: an example's purpose is to illustrate a point. Therefore you must have a point to illustrate. Here your example doesn't seem to illustrate anything from the rest of the paragraph, and you never elaborated on the example about what you are trying to illustrate either.)

Numerous although the favorable points that saving land leads to are, they cannot compete with the benefits that using land for human development brings about, if resolving Food issue and providing more convenience to people is taken to consideration. In sum, I surely maintain that using land for farmland, housing and industry is a reasonable choice.

总结：

首先你有一个让文章很拗口的习惯就是就是滥用名词。。很多时候用-ing式词或者名词的地方实际上都可以直接用动词。

然后，我觉得你写文章是属于感情型、描述型的。。你会用很美很高级的词汇充满感情地描写你要说的东西，很多关于感情/知觉的细节，但是你说的东西基本上是上句和下句之间没有什么逻辑联系，这样。请明白你需要写的不是记叙文，而是议论文。一篇议论文，特别在例子的部分，固然需要描写，但更重要的是说理、论述中的上下文联系、过渡和逻辑的展开。所以这方面请多加注意。

lsj19851219UID: 2776783

我在原篇的基础上做了修改，多提提意见吧。谢谢

41 Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.

There is a public discussion concerning whether the demands of human for farmland, housing, and industry are more essential than saving land for animals being at the edge of extinction. Factually, an increasing number of people argue against using land for human purposes considering a great deal of endangered animals. However, contrary to this opinion, I strongly agree that using land for farming, housing, as well as industrialization has made lots of people far from starvation and improved individuals’ living condition, even though there may be one or two advantage of saving land for threatened animals.

To begin with, a large amount of farmland guarantees the adequate supply of food. It is true that most people in the earth are suffering from starvation, poverty and so forth, which has beset and obsessed their governments over times. In order to resolving this problem, we have to raise a great deal of crops. While the precondition of great yields is applying more land to farm. For example, although the population of China is the largest in the world, the effect made by starvation on civilians is not serious. This result is contributed to sufficient farmland in China. Hence, there is no denying that human beings have reaped numerous benefits from using land for farming.

Secondly, utilizing land to build houses and develop industry can benefit people from establishing entertainment facilities and increasing residents’ incomes. Individuals can feel relaxed when wandering in city parks, watching brilliant films and appreciating melodic concerts. And using land for human habitats indeed provide certain numbers of houses, which can relieve the peoples’ anxiety of that. It is also conducive to improving mental health of citizens. Moreover, with the advance of industrialization, there can be an increasing number of job opportunities for people who have more chances to earn more money. In turn, the rise of consuming capacity also enhances taxes of a government which can improve human living conditions. In sum, the society has made an excellent progress by virtue of using land for houseing and industry.

Finally, it is admitted that some positive aspects of saving land for endangered animals are manifest. The diversity of species plays a vital role in ecological balance. With using land for human purposes, the food chain of species including human beings might be destructed by our own behaviors. From the long-term view, saving lands might decrease the rate of human development, but it is helpful to our decedents' development. For instance, most of countries establish environment preserving areas by banning all types of industrial usage. This illustrates the importance of saving land for the further development of mankind.

Numerous although the favorable points that saving land leads to are, they cannot compete with the benefits that using land for human development brings about, if resolving Food issue and providing more convenience to people is taken to consideration. In sum, I surely maintain that using land for farmland, housing and industry is a reasonable choice.