ISSUE83 【Aero小组】第11次作业

lovemxfUID: 2335206

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."

I disagree with the speaker's claim that government should preserve publicly own wilderness areas in their natural state in that some areas are extremely remote to people reach there. However, some wilderness areas that are easily accessible by human being should be preserved by the government.

The first reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that some areas which are difficult for human being to reach there need not protect. Consider, for example, no one would like to live in or go to desert or marish except some adventurers. But these adventurers are too few to bring harm effect to these areas. What is more, most of these people are scientists or the people with high education, and they go to these areas just for research and study. Therefore they would protect these areas carefully such as the scientists in Antarctica. In a short, some areas which few people go there or live in need not be preserved.  

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that many other immediate problems need government to solve such medical care, drugs, crimes, unemployment and so on. All these afflict the normal life greatly. Government should put their attention and provide their limited resources to these problems. If not, people's benefit would be undermined and government would have opportunity to be overturned. For example, if every government do not focus on resolving the unemployment and give all finance support to protect the wildness, it will be a nightmare to every citizenry in that their living right will not be warranted by their government. On the other hand, if government gives the finance support to both the wilderness areas and economy fields, it would surely require more revenue from their citizenry and it might increase the citizenry’s burden and raise much complaint of them. Therefore, without enough resources it is not realistic that government preserves the whole wilderness areas in their natural areas.
However, some wilder areas where people live nearby or possess some endanger species should be protected. Some of these areas are habituated in some invaluable species. If the government does not take effective measures to preserve these areas, the eco-balance of these areas would be very easily disturbed and the environment would be polluted. What is more, even it may be due to the cherish species extinguish for losing their living home or unlimited hunting by human being. Some countries establish Natural Reserves and laws to protect the wildness areas. For example, there are many Natural Reserves in China. The largest one is to protect an endanger animal--panda. Thanks to these preserving actions, panda could healthily live in their homeland till now. Therefore the government should protect the areas where are nearby the humankind and possess some endanger species.

All in all, not every wilderness area should be preserved by government. The only preserved areas are those areas with endanger animals or lying nearby the human being.
Backtop

bigyanUID: 2382427

I disagree with the speaker's claim that government should preserve publicly own wilderness areas in their natural state in that some areas are extremely remote to people reach there. However, some wilderness areas that are easily accessible by human being should be preserved by the government.

The first reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that some areas which are difficult for human being to reach there need not protect. Consider, for example, no one would like to live in or go to desert or marish except some adventurers. But these adventurers are too few to bring harm effect to these areas. What is more, most of these people are scientists or the people with high education, and they go to these areas just for research and study. Therefore they would protect these areas carefully such as the scientists in Antarctica. In a short, some areas which few people go there or live in need not be preserved.  

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that many other immediate problems need government to solve such medical care, drugs, crimes, unemployment and so on. All these afflict the normal life greatly. Government should put their attention and provide their limited resources to these problems. If not, people's benefit would be undermined and government would have opportunity to be overturned. For example, if every government do not focus on resolving the unemployment and give all finance support to protect the wildness, it will be a nightmare to every citizenry in that their living right will not be warranted by their government. On the other hand, if government gives the finance support to both the wilderness areas and economy fields, it would surely require more revenue from their citizenry and it might increase the citizenry’s burden and raise much complaint of them. Therefore, without enough resources it is not realistic that government preserves the whole wilderness areas in their natural areas.(好好好~好例子呀）
However, some wilder areas where people live nearby or possess some endanger species should be protected. Some of these areas are habituated in some invaluable species. If the government does not take effective measures to preserve these areas, the eco-balance of these areas would be very easily disturbed and the environment would be polluted. What is more, even it may be due to the cherish species extinguish for losing their living home or unlimited hunting by human being. Some countries establish Natural Reserves and laws to protect the wildness areas. For example, there are many Natural Reserves in China. The largest one is to protect an endanger animal--panda. Thanks to these preserving actions, panda could healthily live in their homeland till now. Therefore the government should protect the areas where are nearby the humankind and possess some endanger species.

All in all, not every wilderness area should be preserved by government. The only preserved areas are those areas with endanger animals or lying nearby the human being.

不知这篇文章是不是在限时内完成的，明显比上一篇要好上很多， 无论是语言还是逻辑，都可以看得出还是有着相当的语言功底的（至少比我多很多）

shuwenyingUID: 2233183

I disagree with the speaker's claim that government should preserve publicly own wilderness areas in their natural state in that some areas are extremely remote to people reach there. However, some wilderness areas that are easily accessible by human being should be preserved by the government.

The first reason for my disagreement with the speaker is that some areas which are difficult for human being to reach there need not protect. Consider, for example, no one would like to live in or go to desert or marish except some adventurers. But these adventurers are too few to bring harm effect harmful effect to these areas. What is more, most of these people are scientists or the people with high education 个人觉得这个有高等教育的人跟前面的科学家并列有点重复，建议改成“有冒险/远行经验的人，跟前文的探险者呼应一下^_^, and they go to these areas just for research and study. Therefore they would protect these areas carefully such as the scientists in Antarctica. In a short, some areas which few people go there去掉，which已经是go的宾语了 or live in need not be preserved.  

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is that many other immediate problems need require好像好一些，似乎没有见过need sb to do这样的用法 government to solve such medical care, drugs, crimes, unemployment and so on. All these afflict the normal life greatly. Government should put their attention and provide their limited resources to these problems. If not, people's benefit would be undermined and government would have opportunity to be overturned. For example, if every government do not focus on resolving the unemployment and give all finance support to protect the wildness, it will be a nightmare to every citizenry in that their living right will not be warranted by their government.如果这里的例子能具体一点比较好，仅仅用一个大家觉得是恶梦什么的是不是比较空？ On the other hand, if government gives the finance support to both the wilderness areas and economy fields, it would surely require more revenue from their citizenry and it might increase the citizenry’s burden and raise much complaint of them. Therefore, without enough resources it is not realistic that government preserves the whole wilderness areas in their natural areas.这个例子比前一个例子好很多，建议把前一个例子加工成这种感觉就很好了

However, some wilder areas where people live nearby or possess some endanger species should be protected. Some of these areas are habituated in some invaluable species.似乎是Some of these areas are habitaed by some endanged specise. If the government does not take effective measures to preserve these areas, the eco-balance of these areas would be very easily disturbed and the environment would be polluted.这句话的几个从句之间的顺序最好改一下，这些地方的生态平衡本来就很脆弱，不是如果政府不保护就会很脆弱。这样的逻辑比较合理”因为这些地方的生态环境很脆弱，如果政府不保护，就会……“，而你这句的逻辑是”如果政府不保护，这些地方的生态平衡很脆弱，会被污染“ What is more, even it may be due to the cherish species extinguish for losing their living home or unlimited hunting by human being. Some countries establish Natural Reserves and laws to protect the wildness areas. For example, there are many Natural Reserves in China. The largest one is to protect an endanger animal--panda. Thanks to these preserving actions, panda could healthily live in their homeland till now. Therefore the government should protect the areas where are nearby the humankind and possess some endanger species.

All in all, not every wilderness area should be preserved by government. The only preserved areas are those areas with endanger animals or lying nearby the human being.总结段还是加上第三段的内容比较好

总体上论证逻辑和语言都很好，只有一点小错，不影响整体文章的理解～
我的文章正好是跟作者取相反态度的，学习了！