issue83 oceanus4月作文小组3月25日作业

oceanusUID：2283238

我的第一篇issue，写得不好字数也少，请多多指教

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: 225          TIME: 0:60:12          DATE: 2007-3-25

提纲：
1 反对题目观点。
2 保护荒地花费巨大，而且意义不大。
3 政府的财力有限，需要把财力用到最需要的地方。
4 即使要保护荒地，也应等到国家发展到一定的程度。
5 总结

Government should not preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state.

First of all, wilderness areas are often desolate, so if government wants to preserve them, it will expend a lot of money. Those areas are accessible to only a few people, when government is preserving them, it should hire many persons and build or rent house for them. Besides, even if government preserves these areas well, what will they give people? People will get little. So that government preserves publicly owed wildness areas will not the effect.

Secondly, the resource of government is definite. Government can not use the resource for every thing, It is necessary to spend the money on the right thing. Government should maximize the part that its resource plays in economics, culture and politics, Government should primarily satisfy people’s need, then it can consider other things.

Thirdly, government can preserve wilderness areas, but it may not be the moment. Only when the country’s development has arrived at that degree of thriving and prosper, government may begin to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas. In short, the prosperity of country is the premise of preserve wilderness areas.

In sum, it is first and foremost to satisfy people’s need for economics, culture and politics. Before the country’s development arrives at the degree of flourish, government should not preserve publicly and wilderness areas.






[ 本帖最后由 oceanus 于 2007-3-26 10:43 编辑 ]

pishengUID：2169170

Government should not preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state.(言简意赅，好！但是如果怕字数不都的话可以再添一两句，比如先引用，再反对。纯属个人建议)
First of all, wilderness areas are often desolate, so if（英语里好像没这么说的） government wants to preserve them, it will expend a lot of money. Those areas are accessible to only a few people, when government is preserving them, it should hire many persons and build or rent house（s） for them. Besides, even if government preserves these areas well, what will they give people?（what benefit will people gain from doing that） People will get little. So that government preserves publicly owed wildness areas will not (make) the effect.
Secondly, the resource of government is definite(有点Chinglish的感觉，不如换成limited). Government can not use the resource for every thing, It is necessary to spend the money on the right thing. Government should maximize the part in that its resource plays in economics, culture and politics,(能读懂，但是感觉比较别扭) Government should firstly primarily satisfy people’s need（去掉’s need）, then it can（可去掉） consider other things.
Thirdly, government can preserve wilderness areas, but it may not be （at） the moment. Only when the country’s development has arrived at that degree of thriving and prosper, government may begin to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas.（Only when the country develops to a high lever of wealth and prosperity, could the government begin to…… ） In short, the prosperity of country is the premise of preserve wilderness areas.
In sum, it is first and foremost to satisfy people’s needfor（on）economics , culture and politics. Before the country’s development arrives at the degree of flourish, government should not preserve publicly and wilderness areas.

观点很明确，但是缺乏强有力的论据支撑。论证方面显得比较单一。同一个意思的话不用反复说。个别语言不够地道。
个人感觉最主要的问题是论据，急需补充。加油！

[ 本帖最后由 pisheng 于 2007-3-26 14:30 编辑 ]

oceanusUID：2283238

谢谢pisheng的修改，非常感谢

pishengUID：2169170

客气啦~一起加油~共同进步~:)