issue83

95221740UID：2118079

83"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."

With the fast development of society and technology, there is more and more need to the nature resources. Should government preserve publicly owned wildness areas in their nature state or use existing nature source to develop industry? My answer is the former.

Preserving wildness area is to make balance between nature and humanity. During the long history river, people are always damaging the environments. They cut forests, polluted river and changed the farmland to sands which all brought severe problems to people. Taking forests as an example. As the lung of nature, forests can make effect on clearing air and preventing soil losing. Supposing that one day forests disappear forever in our world, what will be brought by that? At first, people and their offspring will never see this green. Secondly, polluted air which can not be cleared by tree again will possibly cause kinds of disease to people and even make people dead. Last and not the least, people will loose resource of wood to produce paper and construct buildings. So that government should preserve wildness areas not only for the environments of earth but also for the people themselves.

In wildness areas there are kinds of wild animals and plants, some of which are nearly extinct in the world. Preserving the inhabiting area of these animals and plants are equal to protect these species. Review the long history, there are two main reasons resulting in the extinction of species. One of two reasons is the change of outer environments which can not avoided by the people , however , the another reason is the inference of people themselves. Some species are died for the endless hunt of people even in remote area accessible to only a few people, such as oryx in Tibet altiplano ,or for missing the living area taken by humanity. To protect our friends, these animals and plants, government should preserve wild area for them to survive and prevent the inference of people , or less people will live in earth alone.

The progress of preserving wild area is only executed by governments ,not by private people. people do not have the ability and power to protect environments or preserve area so that they have to get the help of governments. there are not some people owning private wild area, such as forest in the world and even owning it is also possibility that they may do not want to preserve forests. however in every nation there are wild area and government have more ability to preserve area than single or some people.

To sum up, to protect the balance between nature and humanity and our friends, various specious, preserving wild area ,even though it is accessible to only a few people, is of course needed. And this process should be carries out by governments because they own powers and have ability to establish this more effective than few people.

95221740UID：2118079

我也不知道什么水平，哪位好心指点一下把。
感激不尽

one way streetUID：194590

With the fast development of society and technology, there is more and more need to(for) the nature(natural) resources. Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their nature state or use existing nature source to develop industry? 我觉得这样就把你的论证范围局限了，难道野生环境的用途除了维持其原来状态就是利用其资源发展工业吗？My answer is the former.

Preserving wilderness area is to make(keep) balance between nature and humanity. During(我觉得改成in the long river of history比较好啊) the long history river, people are always（always不能和现在时连用啊！语法错误） damaging the environments. They cuted forests, polluted rivers and changed the farmland to sands which(that) all brought severe problems to people. Taking forests as an example. As the lung of nature, forests can make effect 这个短语用在这里不合适on clearing air and preventing soil losing. Supposing that one day forests disappear forever in our world, what will be brought by that?[/u]（中国式英语，个人认为改为what the consequence will be？比较好） (去掉At) firstly, people and their offsprings will never see this green. Secondly, polluted air which can not be cleared by tree again will possibly causes kinds of disease to people and even makes people dead. Last and not the least, people will lose resource of wood to produce paper and construct buildings. So that government should preserve wildness areas not only for the environments（抽象名词，去掉s） of earth but also for the people themselves.感觉例子举的不是很贴切，野生地区与环境是2个概念，野生地区可能有多种特征，以森林资源为例代表性不是很明显。同时还可以阐述野生环境的其他作用，段末以过渡句引出下一段。

In wilderness areas there are kinds of wild animals and plants, some of which are nearly extinct in the world. Preserving the inhabiting area of these animals and plants are(is) equal to protecting these species. Review the long history, there are two main reasons resulting in the extinction of species. One of the two reasons is the change of outer environments which can not (be) avoided by 去掉the people , however , 去掉the another reason is the inference of people themselves. Some species are died for the endless hunting of people even in remote area accessible to only a few people, such as oryx in Tibet altiplano ,or for missing the living area taken up by humanity. To protect our friends, these animals and plants, government should preserve wild area for them to survive and prevent the inference of people , or less people will live in earth alone. 最后一句表达不清晰，但一时想不出来好的表达方式，作者自己多推敲一下啊！还有，整段inference用的不对，我想作者是想用interference吧！

The progress of preserving wild area is only executed by governments ,not by private people. people do not have the ability and power to protect environments or preserve such area so that they have to get the help of （from）governments. there are not some(many) people owning(who own) private wild area, such as forest in the world and even owning it is also possibility that they may do not want to preserve forests. however in every nation there are wild area and government have more ability to preserve area than single or some people. 这段话是说政府有能力保护这些野生环境而个人欠缺这种能力，但与主题没有什么关系啊！主题是讨论应不应该保护，而不是政府有无能力保护。

To sum up, to protect the balance between nature and humanity and our friends, various specious, preserving wild area ,even though it is accessible to only a few people, is of course needed. And this process should be carries out by governments because they own（用have比较合适） powers and have ability to establish（用carryout 比较合适） this more effective than few people.最后一句话就有点跑题了，原因就是前面说的。同时，与开头的呼应不够。

总体来看，思路还比较清晰，但是语言表达还是欠缺，很多句子表达比较中国化，建议多背一些句型，使用一些套话未尝不可。论证还需要进一步展开，深度不够。同时一定要注意围绕主题展开，思路不能太发散。作者开头提到use existing nature source to develop industry来的突兀，题目只是要不要的问题i，而不是选择保护或发展工业的问题。所以，作者一定要理解透彻题目，千万不要随意修改题目。

个人意见，多多包涵。:lol

希望得到你的指教：:handshake https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

95221740UID：2118079

多谢指教啊。
我倒数第二段是想写只有国家有能力去保护wild area,所以应该有国家去保护，而不是个人。

one way streetUID：194590

那和主题有什么关系呢？

95221740UID：2118079

因为题目里有government should, 我是想抓这一点写一下。 问什么是government should ，别的不行。
前两端是写应该preserve,
第三段就想指出是谁preserve
呵呵～～

one way streetUID：194590

哦，原来你是这样想的。
government should 是说“政府应该”，如果是“应该是政府”那你的观点就没什么问题了。我是这样理解的，但无论如何，这不是题目的关键。你觉得呢？