Issue83 欢迎来拍，留链必回

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

现在限时是没什么问题了，就是写出来的东西含金量不高……苦闷ing
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: 579          TIME: 0:42:00          DATE: 2007-2-28
完全同意：
1、  边远地区毁坏了影响物种生存并难以恢复
2、  政府有能力来保护边远地区的环境
3、  保护边远地区的环境有利于当代和后代人的发展

Does government has the responsibility to preserve publicly owned land in their natural state as the speaker maintains? In my point of view, I strongly agree with the speaker, even though these areas are remote and accessible to only a few people, because our environment has to be preserved and the government other than any other institution has the ability to protect the environment.

To begin with, one of the reasons for my agreement with the speaker is that these wilderness areas are easily destroyed thus calling our attention to protect them in their natural state or else our existence as a species may not be well conserved. For example, deforestation in some tropical countries are already set into motion a chain of extinction of certain kinds of species while the deforested areas cannot be restored to original state in a short time term. The deforestation also contribute to the arising level of greenhouse gases as trees can absorb certain amount of such gases thus can help to ensure the well-being of our society. Thus, some measures must be taken to protect these wilderness areas from being destroyed by human beings or other nature forces as well.

Secondly, another reason for my agreement with the speaker is that it is up to our government rather than any other institution and personal to undertake the task of protecting the remote areas. On the one hand, government can get a much clearer view of the overall areas which need to be reserved. Besides, government has the ability to call on and organize scientists and researchers to come up means with which to protect and restore the environment in the wilderness areas. Moreover, under the instruction of government in some countries, certain laws concerning publicly owned areas might be made to well support the protection of these areas. On the other hand, when government place much emphasis on the protection of remote areas, people together with some institutions can attribute to the effort to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state. Based on all these reasons, I hold the opinion that other institutions or personals cannot be as effectively as government when comes to the question of protecting publicly owned land in remote areas.

Thirdly, protecting wilderness areas to ensure them remain in their natural state not only benefit our generation but also contribute to the generations to come. For one thing, preserve publicly owned land in remote areas can do benefit to the protection of our environment at the first place. The better the environment, the better the condition of our coming generations. For another, in some rural areas, there might be some resources that remain undeveloped because only a few people can get access to the areas. Preserving remote areas can help to preserve the potential energy for the coming generations. While one might argue that we should make the most of potential energy in order to better develop our temporal society. However, from my viewpoint, it is our responsibility to not to utilize all the energy and threaten the well-being of our coming generations.

To sum up, I totally agree with the speaker's claim when it comes to the preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, as form my viewpoint only the government has the ability and necessity to fully undertake such a task. Besides, even in remote areas can these lands be so important to not only our generation but our generations to come.

timboyUID: 193944

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: 579          TIME: 0:42:00          DATE: 2007-2-28
完全同意：
1、  边远地区毁坏了影响物种生存并难以恢复
2、  政府有能力来保护边远地区的环境
3、  保护边远地区的环境有利于当代和后代人的发展

Does government has the responsibility to preserve publicly owned land in their natural state as the speaker maintains? (审题不完整：是wilderness area 不是land. )In my point of view, I strongly agree with the speaker, even though these areas are remote and accessible to only a few people, because our environment has to be preserved and (thus)the government other than any other institution has the ability to protect the environment.
To begin with, one of the reasons for my agreement with the speaker is that these wilderness areas are easily destroyed thus calling our attention to protect them in their natural state or else our existence as a species may not be well conserved. For example, deforestation in some tropical countries（改成tropical wilderness areas好一些） are already set into motion a chain of extinction of certain kinds of species while the deforested areas cannot be restored to original state in a short time term. （能用数据充实你的论据吗？）The deforestation also contribute to the arising level of greenhouse gases as trees can absorb certain amount of such gases thus can help to ensure the well-being of our society. Thus, some measures must be taken to protect these wilderness areas from being destroyed by human beings or other nature forces as well.

看到这里，我想说的是，你在主题句就要说明你在这一段是想证明保护荒地是对的，不是证明政府保护荒地是对的。这两个概念不同。

Secondly, another reason for my agreement with the speaker is that it is up to our government rather than any other institution and personal to undertake the task of protecting the remote areas. On the one hand, government can get a much clearer view of the overall areas which need to be reserved. Besides, government has the ability to call on and organize scientists and researchers to come up means with which to protect and restore the environment in the wilderness areas. Moreover, under the instruction of government in some countries, certain laws concerning publicly owned areas might be made to well support the protection of these areas. On the other hand, when government place much emphasis on the protection of remote areas, people together with some institutions can attribute to the effort to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state. Based on all these reasons, I hold the opinion that other institutions or personals cannot be as effectively as government when comes to the question of protecting publicly owned land in remote areas.

在on one hand 和 on the other hand 中间，我看到的不是一个逻辑紧密的总分结构，不是一个意群，建议在on one hand后有个主题句来概括你的其余分论点。此外，on the other hand没有展开论述，不能让人信服。

Thirdly, protecting wilderness areas to ensure them remain in their natural state not only benefit our generation but also contribute to the generations to come. For one thing, preserve publicly owned land in remote areas can do benefit to the protection of our environment at the first place. The better the environment, the better the condition of our coming generations. （和你第一个论点重复）For another, in some rural areas, there might be some resources that remain undeveloped because only a few people can get access to the areas. Preserving remote areas can help to preserve the potential energy for the coming generations. While one might argue that we should make the most of potential energy in order to better develop our temporal society. However, from my viewpoint, it is our responsibility to not to utilize all the energy and threaten the well-being of our coming generations.

第三个论点建议放在第二个论点之后，显得更有逻辑。


To sum up, I totally agree with the speaker's claim when it comes to the preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, as form my viewpoint only the government has the ability and necessity to fully undertake such a task. Besides, even in remote areas can these lands be so important to not only our generation but our generations to come.

思路很好，但是文章不饱满，说服力和逻辑性不强。加油！

欢迎拍砖 我的链接https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=620407&extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 timboy 于 2007-3-4 10:09 编辑 ]

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

抱歉回拍的有些迟了阿……学校的网络……呵呵~
38"In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books."

Since the very advent of television, switching the channel to watch the favorite program quickly becomes an essential approach of learning the可以去掉 knowledge. Some television advocates even asserts assert the “television age” declaresdeclare我对这句挺困惑的，assert是不是要跟should联用的，should可以省略的？以前学的语法都忘记了…… the death of ‘book age’. However, at least in a relatively long period, People cannot learn enough knowledge by watching television rather than reading books. 建议改为强调书的重要性

Compared with books, television has distinctive advantage on teaching, for it can display the dramatic picture of the real life and wild area without merely abstract cultivation. The National Geographic magazine can describe the climate of somewhere and the behavior of human or some animals, even carrying some beautiful picture of them. Meanwhile, the National Geographic program in television can describe the climate or the behavior of human as well as books, especially with the moving picture that recreates the behavior of human and wide animals vividly. 感觉以上这两句差不多 Apparently, the program will be more impressive than the magazine. And the author's assertion is reasonable from this standpoint.

However, television can not replace the books since去掉 with the consideration of lucrative business, television acts as a performer more than a teacher.  After one-day tiring work, in general, many people prefer the entertainment to the educational program.很有道理 Consequently, the most popular program is always the situation comedy or talk show, at the same time, the educational program is somewhat ignored. As known for to all, many television stations gets profit from the advertising, so the program that is not popular such as the educational program will surely be confined. Because of this, obviously, watching television still can not replace reading books in learning knowledge.

Moreover, since many achievement of human kind before the invention of television were recorded in the form of paper, reading books should be a better way of learning the knowledge. The works of ancient famous philosophers, scientists is mostly published in the form of books. Only can people get the original thinking of these great people through reading books since these books is the most complete and objective record of the great thinking of these celebrities.建议改为Only through reading books can people……倒装不错~ In contrast, when a director tries to display these works in the form of television, hardly can one keep the original thinking of the previous authors because everyone has one’s own Hamlet, who can guarantee the Hamlet in the brain of director is the same one in the heart of the Shakespeare? That’s the reason why some people sometimes complain that the TV program ruins the original content of the great works from our ancestors. From this perspective, reading books are irreplaceable if you want to get the first-hand objective and complete material of such great works.

In sum, television does have some special advantages, such as displaying dynamic images that are more impressive than books. 强调句~ However, watching television cannot replace reading books in the form of改为in the light of  learning because the TV program is a business but not a pure educator建议换一个词 and also seldom can express the complete and objective mind from the great works before the coming of TV like the books do.

写得不错~句式也很丰富~向LZ学习~

exxonUID: 2275464

Does government has the responsibility to preserve publicly owned land in their natural state as the speaker maintains? In my point of view, I strongly agree with the speaker, even though these areas are remote and accessible to only a few people, because our environment has to be preserved and the government other than any other institution has the ability to protect the environment.
To begin with, one of the reasons for my agreement with the speaker is that these wilderness areas are easily destroyed thus calling our attention to protect them in their natural state or else our existence as a species may not be well conserved.(这点是不是不通？还是我没有理解？) For example, deforestation in some tropical countries are already set into motion a chain of extinction of certain kinds of species while the deforested areas cannot be restored to original state in a short time term(in a short period of time或许更好些）. The deforestation also contribute to the arising level of greenhouse gases as（逻辑不太合理吧，应该用一个转折词比如while） trees can absorb certain amount of such gases thus can help to ensure the well-being of our society. Thus, some measures must be taken to protect these wilderness areas from being destroyed by human beings or other nature forces as well.(最后一句应该强调政府作为一个机构有义务保护wild areas所以如果用被动句最好加个主语)
Secondly, another reason for my agreement with the speaker is that it is up to our government rather than any other institution and personal to undertake the task of protecting the remote areas. On the one hand,（该短语表示的是转折这里不太适用吧） government can get a much clearer view of the overall areas which need to be reserved. Besides, government has the ability to call on and organize scientists and researchers to come up means with which to protect and restore the environment in the wilderness areas. Moreover, under the instruction of government in some countries, certain laws concerning publicly owned areas might be made to well support the protection of these areas. On the one hand,（问题同上） when government place much emphasis on the protection of remote areas, people together with some institutions can attribute to the effort to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state. Based on all these reasons, I hold the opinion that other institutions or personals cannot be as effectively as government when comes to the question of protecting publicly owned land in remote areas.
Thirdly, protecting wilderness areas to ensure them remain in their natural state not only benefit our generation but also contribute to the generations to come. For one thing, preserve publicly owned land in remote areas can do benefit to the protection of our environment at the first place. The better the environment, the better the condition of our coming generations. For another, in some rural areas, there might be some resources that remain undeveloped because only a few people can get access to the areas. Preserving remote areas can help to preserve the potential energy for the coming generations. While one might argue that we should make the most of potential energy in order to better develop our temporal society. However, from my viewpoint, it is our responsibility to not to utilize all the energy and threaten the well-being of our coming generations.
To sum up, I totally agree with the speaker's claim when it comes to the preservation of publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, as form my viewpoint only the government has the ability and necessity to fully undertake such a task. Besides, even in remote areas can these lands be so important to not only our generation but our generations to come.（最后建议你多用例子比如大熊猫啊，丹顶鹤啊政府不保护就要灭绝==）
  偶的链接https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=623350请猛砸！