ISSUE121 [戮力同心]小组第三次作业 by nun318

nun318UID??2205752

121. "At various times in the geological past, many species have become extinct as a result of natural, rather than human, processes. Thus, there is no justification for society to make extraordinary efforts, especially at a great cost in money and jobs, to save endangered species."
同意
1 对动物的关注胜过人的是荒谬的.
2尽管生物学家说保护动物有助于维持生物多样性但我们并未从中得到任何好处.
3人类面临饥饿贫穷战争等更重要的问题要解决.
最后优胜劣汰依然适用,为保护那些本该被淘汰的动物所付出的花费既是对自然的不尊重也是对人类自己的不尊重.

As more and more species have or will become extinct, increasing many of people, governments and organizations concern about how to protect those species from dying out. I concede that some species indeed human’s protection, such as some plants or animals whose extinct are related to human. However, for other species which become extinct for the reason of nature but human, people have no need to devote so much money and effort on them.

Firstly, people’s concerns about those species which are near extinct are extreme emphasized sometimes even far more than people themselves. Almost everyday we see something in the papers about the latest dramatic declining in population of some species. Much money and efforts are regularly spent on protecting the population so species from decreasing. Some of these near extinct animals’ living condition and environment are obviously superior most people. This phenomenon reflects the massive efforts to animals protecting, and at the same time it expose the absurdity of the undertaking.

Secondly, we are often told that saving endangered species will be utilized to keep the genetic diversity by some biologists. But what has it done to relieve the suffering of the earth’s starving millions? In what way has it raised the standard of living of any one of us? As far as the laymen us concerned, the practical results of all this expenditure of money and effort are negligible. Poverty, hunger, and war are man’s greatest enemies and the world would be a better place if the powerful nations devoted the same money and effort to these problems as they do to the animals and plants.  If a man deprived himself and his family of food in order to feed a lazy cat, would consider him mad. When you see those children who will be dead from starvation, you would reconsider whether this great devotion on saving endangered animals is rational and valuable.

Thirdly, some people claims saving endangered species also have its moral values, because every creature has its right to live on this earth. When those animals have not enough ability to live, human should help them no matter what value will be cost.  However, if a man deprived himself and his family of food in order to feed a lazy cat, would consider him mad. Individuals with limited budgets usually get their priorities right: they provided themselves with necessities before trying to do perform an act of charity.

Finally, the old principals of evolution, “survival of the fittest” is still applicable in modern time. For some animals which have no capacity to live in the nature without human’s help such as cola and panda, perhaps the best way is that let the nature decides their fate.  Extraordinary efforts and money to save endangered species without considering human’s struggling in serious problems are disrespect to the nature and human ourselves.

liyi2321UID??2252012

As more and more species have or will become extinct (我的理解一个具体最好不要同时并列出现两个时态), increasing many of people, governments and organizations concern about how to protect those species from dying out. I concede that some species indeed human’s protection, such as some plants or animals whose extinct are related to human. However, for other species which become extinct for the reason of nature but human, people have no need to devote so much money and effort on them.
（核心观点：部分同意）
Firstly, people’s concerns about those species which are near extinct are extreme emphasized sometimes even far more than people themselves. Almost everyday we see something in the papers about the latest dramatic declining in population of some species. Much money and efforts are regularly spent on protecting the population so species from decreasing. Some of these near extinct animals’ living condition and environment are obviously superior (to) most people. This phenomenon reflects the massive efforts to animals protecting, and at the same time it expose the absurdity of the undertaking.
（分论点：按照你的提纲是说对动物保护胜过人是荒谬的，但是为什么荒谬呢？感觉论证不够，你的多数文字都是在说对动物的关注胜过人这个事实。并没有深入进去。）
Secondly, we are often told that saving endangered species will be utilized to keep the genetic diversity by some biologists. But what has it done to relieve the suffering of the earth’s starving millions? In what way has it raised the standard of living of any one of us? As far as the laymen us concerned, the practical results of all this expenditure of money and effort are negligible. Poverty, hunger, and war are man’s greatest enemies and the world would be a better place if the powerful nations devoted the same money and effort to these problems as they do to the animals and plants.  If a man deprived himself and his family of food in order to feed a lazy cat, would consider him mad. When you see those children who will be dead from starvation, you would reconsider whether this great devotion on saving endangered animals is rational and valuable.

Thirdly, some people claims saving endangered species also have its moral values, because every creature has its right to live on this earth. When those animals have not enough ability to live, human should help them no matter what value will be cost.  However, if a man deprived himself and his family of food in order to feed a lazy cat, would consider him mad. Individuals with limited budgets usually get their priorities right: they provided themselves with necessities before trying to do perform an act of charity.
（你这两段说的问题好象有点重复，而且那个喂懒猫的例子不加修改的用了两遍，看得我有点迷惑。
Finally, the old principals of evolution, “survival of the fittest” is still applicable in modern time. For some animals which have no capacity to live in the nature without human’s help such as cola and panda, perhaps the best way is that let the nature decides their fate.  Extraordinary efforts and money to save endangered species without considering human’s struggling in serious problems are disrespect to the nature and human ourselves.

整体感觉：我个人感觉你的思路有些偏颇，只是集中论证了过分濒危保护物种没有必要，但是你的核心观点从你的开头段来看，是部分同意，因为你有这个让步：I concede that some species indeed human’s protection, such as some plants or animals whose extinct are related to human. 所以我觉得既然你认为过分保护濒危物种没有必要，那也最好必要的保护是需要的。总之，这个题目ETS的观点倾向是部分同意或者部分反对。所以，最好不要全盘否定或肯定，这样在你论证的时候会有困难，甚至出现逻辑问题。
比如你的有些绝对化的句子也容易导致逻辑错误。比如：the practical results of all this expenditure of money and effort are negligible. 这样的绝对化的论证在issue中尽量不要出现。
总之，虽然我们认为issue是一种话题作文的形式，但是我们还是应该猜测ETS希望我们持哪些观点，或者更功利一些，哪种观点最容易论证，把结构和逻辑写的清楚完备，这样的观点最好是咱们的首选。