Issue83 同主题 拍必回！多多支持

one way streetUID：194590

------题目------
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.
------正文------
In general, I agree with the assertion that 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, for the reason that I believe these areas are components of a state and they stand for the completeness and independence of dominions. What is more, these superficially remote and useless areas may have special meanings for science researches and environment, as well as economic values.

Admittedly, preserving these publicly owned wilderness areas needs numerous investments and labor inputs. Government should spend a significant sum of money in order to protect these areas. Such as hiring workers, purchasing equipment, dispatching arms and so forth. To some extent, all these actions would be a burden for a country's government and quite possibly, they will not be repaid. However, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the shortcoming after considering the merits.

One reason I support the speaker is that these wilderness areas are essential parts of a country, they should be well preserved and protected. Nowadays, an interesting phenomenon draws worlds' attention: one or two or even more neighbored states are arguing for the ownership of a small island. It is strange that such a small island would have any important use, nonetheless, these countries' heat contention is reasonable when considering that once a country gains the ownership of the island, the country would have the ownership of the 200 sea miles maritime space, obviously, it is a valuable property. Therefore, it makes sense for me to support that it is necessary to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas since these areas may have potential values of different uses.

Another reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that these wilderness areas might have important meanings of science researches. It is not difficult for us to understand that just because these areas are seldom affected by human activities, their natural characteristics are well reserved and suffer little destroys, which is a great advantage for the studies of wild lives, wild plants, climates and environment.

In addition, government may obtain considerable economic interests by exploring these wilderness areas. Investors can make use of the typical geographical position and exciting tour venture to attract numbers of travelers, as a result, tourism might be a potential profitable industry. Moreover, these areas possibly have abundant natural resources as petrol, coal mines, natural gas and biological wealth. Therefore, preserving these areas is quite important and necessary for government and the most important, for the overall behalf of the society.

In sum, although there may have some difficulties in preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, government should take actions to protect such areas not only because they are components of a country's territory, and they may also have potential science and economic values.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-30 at 14:12 ]

95221740UID：2118079

------题目------
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.
------正文------
In general, I agree with the assertion that 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, for the reason that I believe（最好不要用believe吧） these areas are components of a state and they stand for the completeness and independence of dominions. What is more, these superficially remote and useless areas may have special meanings for science researches and environment, as well as economic values.

Admittedly, preserving these publicly owned wilderness areas needs numerous investments and labor inputs. Government should spend a significant sum of money（ in order to ）on protecting these areas. Such as hiring workers, purchasing equipment, dispatching arms and so forth. To some extent, all these actions would be a burden for a country's government and quite possibly, they will not be repaid. However, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh the shortcoming after considering the merits.

One reason I support the speaker is that these wilderness areas are essential parts of a country, they should be well preserved and protected这一句有点问题。就是要说明这个问题，在分论点里直接就说明可以吗？加个因果关系说明比较好. Nowadays, an interesting phenomenon draws worlds' attention: one or two or even more neighbored states are arguing for the ownership of a small island. It is strange that such a small island would have any important use, nonetheless, these countries' heat contention is reasonable when considering that once a country gains the ownership of the island, the country would have the ownership of the 200 sea miles maritime space, obviously, it is a valuable property. Therefore, it makes sense for me to support that it is necessary to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas since these areas may have potential values of different uses.我不太赞成这一段，主题是保护wild area ，不是保护领土完整。是不是我理解错了？

Another reason for my fundamental agreement with the speaker is that these wilderness areas might have important meanings of science researches. It is not difficult for us to understand that just because these areas are seldom affected by human activities, their natural characteristics are well reserved and suffer little destroys, which is a great advantage for the studies of wild lives, wild plants, climates and environment.

In addition, government may obtain considerable economic interests by exploring these wilderness areas. Investors can make use of the typical geographical position and exciting tour venture to attract numbers of travelers, as a result, tourism might be a potential profitable industry. Moreover, these areas possibly have abundant natural resources as petrol, coal mines, natural gas and biological wealth. Therefore, preserving these areas is quite important and necessary for government and the most important, for the overall behalf of the society.既然是要preserve，又怎么发展旅游业及利用那些资源呢？用了不就破坏环境了吗？

In sum, although there may have some difficulties in preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, government should take actions to protect such areas not only because they are components of a country's territory, and they may also have potential science and economic values.

95221740UID：2118079

呵呵，我理解的也不算深，我们多讨论一下吧。

one way streetUID：194590

谢谢你的意见！
我第一段的想法是虽然是荒地，也是领土的一部分，是主权的象征，所以应该得到保护。是从国家的角度来讲，你觉得是不是跑题了？或者是原因很勉强？

后面的那一段说可以开发利用不是表示就是要破坏这些地区，而是因为它们也许是有发展开发潜力的地区，所以要保护。

你看还有什么不合适的地方呢？
多谢指教！:)

95221740UID：2118079

我个人觉得你第一段写的是protect 而不是preserve
所以最好改一下把。
其他的其实都不算什么问题了

one way streetUID：194590

那应该从哪个角度改呢？或者应该换个什么理由呢？
多谢指教！