Issue83 [synergy小组]polymerwufan第四次作业

polymerwufanUID: 2219535

According to the speaker, government has the responsibility to prevent publicly owned wilderness areas from being destructed, even including those which are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people. I concede that the assertion is reasonable when it comes to the fact that maintaining wilderness areas in their natural state benefits the balance of the ecological environment as well as some wilder animals and plants. However, the speaker unnecessarily applies this policy to those extremely remote areas.

Admittedly, publicly owned wilderness areas play a very significant role in balancing the ecological environment which has been severely destructed by anthropogenetic behaviors. Although human is merely one of the species on earth, some of unjustifiable human actions have taken dramatically negative influences on our surroundings and brought about a lot ofenvironmental problems such as air pollution and distinctions of some species.And these enduring problems in turn aggravate our life qualities. Thus, if government can take effective measures to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent we might address these stress problems and benefit our offspring. With this respect, I fundamentally agree with thespeaker.

However, preserving extremely remotewilderness areas is not the necessary role of government. After all, those areas which are extremely remote have been slightly influenced by human since they are available to few people. And wilderness areas where are seldom influencedby human might maintain better environmental conditions and serve as the admirable habitats for some wilder animals and plants. Moreover, in these areas, perhaps government's preserving policy and measure, especially taken inappropriately,might undermine the balance in environments which have been constructed by nature. So, it is more reasonable for governments to focus their attentions on those areas which have been severely destructed.

Furthermore, another reason why I disagree with the speaker involves the government’s responsibility of allocating the limited public resources including money, jobs, and other costs. The limitation of resources calls for circumspect attitude in making choices and decisions. After all, unnecessary subsidizing amounts to an obvious waste of the money of the taxpayers. Thus, it is unjustifiable to conclude that government should subsidize every wilderness areas without further evaluation of its practicalityand profitability.

To sum up, the speaker’s claim on preservation of wilderness areas is reasonable to some extent especially when it comes to the fact that government's preserving policy can address the enduring environmental problem. Nevertheless, the speaker might overestimate thispolicy, particularly he or she indicates that any wilderness areas, no matter how they would be like, even extremely remote, should be preserved by governments. In my opinion, this measure should be taken in a more reasonable way and perhaps should be assumed with prudent evaluation.

[ 本帖最后由 polymerwufan 于 2006-12-4 21:58 编辑 ]

memorymemoryUID: 2279449

保存,一会看看

[ 本帖最后由 memorymemory 于 2006-12-5 14:34 编辑 ]

westlife007_huUID: 2270665

According to the speaker, government has the responsibility to prevent publicly owned wilderness areas from being destructed, even including those which are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people. I concede that the assertion is reasonable when it comes to the fact that maintaining wilderness areas in their natural state benefits the balance of the ecological environment as well as some wilder(wild) animals and plants. However, the speaker unnecessarily applies(expands) this policy to those extremely remote areas.

Admittedly, publicly owned wilderness areas play a very significant role in balancing the ecological environment which has been severely destructed by anthropogenetic behaviors. Although human is merely one of the species on earth(问下表示地球要加定冠词the吗), some of unjustifiable human actions have taken dramatically negative influences on our surroundings and brought about a lot ofenvironmental problems such as air pollution and distinctions(extinction) of some species.And these enduring problems in turn aggravate our life qualities. Thus, if government can take effective measures to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent we might address(solve) these stress problems and benefit our offspring. With this respect, I fundamentally agree with thespeaker.

However, preserving extremely remotewilderness areas is not the necessary role of government. After all, those areas which are extremely remote have been slightly influenced by human since they are available to few people. And wilderness areas where(which) are seldom influencedby human might maintain better environmental conditions and serve as the admirable habitats for some wilder animals and plants. Moreover, in these areas, perhaps government's preserving policy and measure, especially taken inappropriately,might undermine the balance in environments which have been constructed by nature. So, it is more reasonable for governments to focus their attentions on those areas which have been severely destructed.

Furthermore, another reason why I disagree with the speaker involves the government’s responsibility of allocating the limited public resources including (前面用过了,可以用containing)money, jobs, and other costs. The limitation of resources calls for circumspect attitude in making choices and decisions. After all, unnecessary subsidizing amounts to an obvious waste of the money of the taxpayers. Thus, it is unjustifiable to conclude that government should subsidize every wilderness areas(单数) without further evaluation of its practicalityand profitability.

To sum up, the speaker’s claim on preservation of wilderness areas is reasonable to some extent especially when it comes to the fact that government's preserving policy can address the enduring environmental problem. Nevertheless, the speaker might overestimate thispolicy, particularly he or she indicates that any wilderness areas, no matter how(what) they would be like, even extremely remote, should be preserved by governments. In my opinion, this measure should be taken in a more reasonable way and perhaps should be assumed with prudent evaluation.
不错,观点有新意,结构很清晰
只是觉得论证方面还有点欠缺,没有能够支持论点的例证
个人意见,希望能对你有帮助

hyt0303UID: 2254178

According to the speaker, government has the responsibility to prevent publicly owned wilderness areas from being destructed, even including those which are often extremely remote and accessible to only a few people. I concede that the assertion is reasonable when it comes to the fact that maintaining wilderness areas in their natural state benefits the balance of the ecological environment as well as some wilder (wild) animals and plants. However, the speaker unnecessarily applies this policy to those extremely remote areas.

Admittedly, publicly owned wilderness areas play a very significant role in balancing the ecological environment which has been severely destructed (destroyed) by anthropogenetic behaviors. Although human is merely one of the species on earth, some of unjustifiable human actions have taken dramatically (drastically) negative influences on our surroundings and brought about a lot ofenvironmental problems such as air pollution and distinctions of some species.And these enduring problems in turn aggravate our life qualities. Thus, if government can take effective measures to preserve the wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent we might address these stress problems and benefit our offspring. With this respect, I fundamentally agree with thespeaker.

However, preserving extremely remote wilderness areas is not the necessary role of government. After all, those areas which are extremely remote have been slightly influenced by human since they are available to few people. And wilderness areas, where (which) are seldom influenced by human, might maintain better environmental conditions and serve as the admirable habitats for some wilder (wild) animals and plants. Moreover, in these areas, perhaps government's preserving policy and measure, especially taken inappropriately, might undermine the balance in environments which have been constructed by nature. （这里是不是应该举点事例，否则光这么说好像很空。）So, it is more reasonable for governments to focus their attentions on those areas which have been severely destructed. 这段论述似乎不太令人信服，你认为政府只要管好那些已被破坏的地方就好了，那些荒郊野外的地区任其自生自灭了？把政府置于这样一个有点反面的位置上，逻辑上是不是有一点漏洞？

Furthermore, another reason why I disagree with the speaker involves the government’s responsibility of allocating the limited public resources including money, jobs, and other costs. The limitation of resources calls for circumspect attitude in making choices and decisions. After all, unnecessary subsidizing amounts to an obvious waste of the money of the taxpayers. （你认为保护这些人迹罕至处是浪费资源，理由是什么应该要说明一下比较好。另外稍微提一下政府更需要在哪些方面多花钱是不是会更好。这样可以衬出保护野地的不必要性）Thus, it is unjustifiable to conclude that government should subsidize every wilderness areas without further evaluation of its practicality and profitability.

To sum up, the speaker’s claim on preservation of wilderness areas is reasonable to some extent especially when it comes to the fact that government's preserving policy can address the enduring environmental problem. Nevertheless, the speaker might overestimate thispolicy, particularly he or she indicates that any wilderness areas, no matter how they would be like, even extremely remote, should be preserved by governments. In my opinion, this measure should be taken in a more reasonable way and perhaps should be assumed with prudent evaluation.结尾写的很有力！