【挑战0706G版主义务修改铺】内有大量斑竹修改过的文章，大家可以参考。

expire7UID: 2160574

关闭了哈。240楼的作文会处理的。
之后的作文不予接待了。抱歉，各位。暂时关闭。

smailingfishUID: 2246243

原帖由 expire7 于 2007-2-2 11:21 发表
204楼的作文，那个版主修改一下哈。

谢谢哦~~呵呵

hyjspmisUID: 2314008

ISSUE121 "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."

Does the society need to make extraordinary efforts to save scarce species from extinction? The speaker asserts that there is no good reason to do so, on the basis that the extinction of many species resulted from natural processes at various times in geological past. I undoubtedly concede that the way of making extraordinary efforts to save species in danger, of course under some circumstances, is questionable. However, in my opinion, costing money and great efforts in the endangered species is still of great importance.

It is true that the need to focus on the activities of getting those species out of danger is unnecessary, in that they have been extinct in natural processes, which is significantly in Darwinian argument that extinction results from the crucial process of so-called “natural selection”. Obviously, on one hand, diversity of evolution leads to the different species in the earth. Some stronger species adapted to the nature while weaker ones cannot survive without the basic skills needed. If they are not able to win in the competition with other species and develop in restricted resources, some species, with no doubt, tend to lose living conditions, which will result in dieing out. On the other hand, human beings confront with many difficult issues as unemployment, crimes, education, and so forth. These contemporary social problems are all in need of a great cost in money and jobs in order to settle them properly. In light of the limited energies and materials, the existing social problems might demand more efforts, prior to the protection of endangered animals.

Nevertheless, the assertion that the species have been extinct attributable to natural processes, rather than human processes, is problematic. Although it seems reasonable, in reality, they are the indirect consequences of human behavior as polluting of lakes and streams. For supporting examples, due to felling trees by humans, a large amount of equatorial rain forests have disappeared as well as many species living there interdependently on each other before the scientist can identify them. In sum, many species' extinction is a result of inappropriate activities made by human beings, rather than natural processes.

In addition, even if the natural processes lead to the endangerment of species, I cannot fully agree with the speaker that there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts. In one sense, many species are valuable in scientific researches as well as in aesthetics. For instance, pandas, one of the precious treasures in our country, are one species, which is on the edge of extinction owning to natural processes. Therefore, the society established a protection zone using for studying and protecting them in Sichuan Province. Now the panda’s quantities are gradually increasing. In another sense, not only should the society allocate the money and jobs to the existing problems, but also the society may focus more on solving the anticipated problems of the future. Depending on the environment we live, humans should learn to be harmonious with the other species. If not the species supply us enough food and energy, human beings will inevitably face to the crisis of surviving with no regard to the development of the society. Therefore, it is an appeal to prevent extinction helpful not only to us, but also to future generations.

To sum up, though the society should focus on the existing social problems, more efforts are essential, taking account of the environment and the future generations, to the endangered animals. If not the great cost in money and jobs, the endangered species will gradually disappear，which might endanger our own survival as a species in the end.

ARGUMENT7 The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."

The arguer asserts that the current members of the Cleaview town council are not protecting our environment by citing a series of evidence. And by comparing Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, it is claimed that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green in order to solve the environmental problems in Clearview. The argument is well presented, however, not well reasoned.

Firstly, it is unfairly asserted that the current numbers are not protecting their environment because of the doubled number of factories, the increased air pollution, and the more and more patients with respiratory illnesses. Nevertheless, the increasing factories do not necessarily mean the more serious pollution. The factories may be established to dealing with the waste. It is possible that they are the factories which have little pollution to the environment, such as package factories. Maybe even some of them are used for clean the polluted water. Secondly, the patients with respiratory illnesses are probably not resulted from the local environment. The arguer fails to consider the alternative explanation that the polluted air can come from the other areas nearby. Thirdly, given that the environment has been polluted, it does not show that the government did not concern about the environmental problems, another possibility -- the pollution has been improved though the environment is still very bad--may account for it.

Moreover, even the council did not protect the environment, the conclusion is unconvincing that Frank Braun does not care for the environment. It is entirely possibly that he validated for protecting the environment which can not help to stop the activities polluting the environment. In addition, nor does the mere fact that Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council lend sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that residents should not vote for him. Lacking such evidence with respect to his abilities to lead a government group and cooperate with other departments, it is entirely possibly that he has more experience in leadership than Ann Green.

Finally, even if Frank Braun is not suitable for being a major, the allegation that the environmental problems will certainly be solved if they elect Ann Green is unwarranted on the only basis that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. It is unreliable to confine the responsibilities of a mayor to the one thing, protecting the environment. The more significant thing is to improve the life quality of the residents and make the environment substantiated. Without adequate facts to verify Ann Green’s abilities, we may suppose that perhaps another candidate would be more effective to take the responsibility of a mayor.

To sum up, although this argument seems logical, in fact, the author can not rely his or her voting recommendation on the basis of the limited evidence provided in the argument. To bolster his or her conclusion the author should give more information about the conditions of each candidate and the details concerning the environment.

hyjspmisUID: 2314008

谢谢斑竹帮忙修改一下拉我自己改过一遍

陈星君UID: 2416582

:)
在的话,我要加入
:handshake

catlovedogUID: 2513428

现在还可以改嘛