issue83 政府保护荒地 限时模考

yuemingjushiUID: 2108406

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.

Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often very remote and thereby can only be attainable to only a few people, as the speaker claims? Judging from several human experiences, I tend to agree with the speaker's allegation that governments are responsible to preserve their publicly wilderness areas, however remote and inaccessible these places may be.

To begin with, wilderness areas, which are unfortunately becoming fewer and fewer, contribute a lot to prevent our environment from being more heavily polluted. Common sense tell us that there are usually flourish forests in such wilderness areas, as well as relatively abundant diversity of animals, all of which are significant wealth of a nation. And good forests or other forms of wilderness can subtly guarantee a wonderful environment for human beings. For example, Japan, with 46 percent of its territory covered by forests, do not have any problems as the expansion of desert or sand storms, while to the contrary, the condition of China is not so optimistic as that in Japan. The only difference is that China only has 16 percent of its territory covered by forest. After realizing this problem, the government of China has carried out series of policies to protect its wilderness areas, and now we can see some progress in China's environment. In short, preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas is a good way to protect the environment of the nation.

Secondly, such wilderness areas are of great merit to scientists who major in realms such as biology and anthropology, and even archeology and so on. For biologists, wilderness areas are natural laboratories which could necessarily and efficiently help them to complete their important experiments and investigations, then human being will be more aware of the significance of environment and this knowledge will in return add to the protection of environment. For anthropologists, the cultures of the very few residents living in such areas are so mysterious and attractive that no one would like to miss it. And the relatively less developed ability of production there helps to study the origins of cultures, which is of considerable value for development. And for archeology, there might be some valuable inheritances from the residents’ predecessors.

Admittedly, it will take great effort and money to protect the publicly owned wilderness in natural state, since they are remote and inaccessible, so remote and inaccessible that only a few people ever live or just arrive there. And with the ever expansion of globalization and industrialization, as well as the short-term desire of the public, it turns out to be more and more difficult to preserve such natural areas. However, we should not abandon the ideas of protecting them, for the fact that we have not been aware of what consequences it will bring after the destruction of such wilderness areas yet. Perhaps there will be great catastrophe to human being, which may be comparable to the extent as shown by the movie ‘The Day after Tomorrow’, and then there is no chance for us to regret. Compared with recovering after destruction, we would rather choose to protect them from the very beginning.

To draw a conclusion, preserving publicly owned wilderness areas is a fairy tough task for the government and its people according to the situation of the human society at present, however, we still have to preserve them for the critical reason that wilderness areas are of great significance for our survival and prosperity, as is illustrated by the above discussions.

cmcm263UID: 204930

Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often very remote and thereby can only be attainable to only a few people(开头最好改多一点，这样好像和全抄差不多哟), as the speaker claims? Judging from several human experiences, I tend to agree with the speaker's allegation that governments are responsible to preserve their publicly wilderness areas, however remote and inaccessible these places may be.

To begin with, wilderness areas, which are unfortunately becoming fewer and fewer, contribute a lot to prevent our environment from being more heavily polluted.(wilderness areas contribute to prevent…读不懂) Common sense tell us that there are usually flourish forests in such wilderness areas, as well as relatively abundant diversity of animals, all of which are significant wealth of a nation. And good forests or other forms of wilderness can subtly guarantee a wonderful environment for human beings. For example, Japan, with 46 percent of its territory covered by forests, do not have any problems as the expansion of desert（可以用这个词desertification） or sand storms, while to the contrary, the condition of China is not so optimistic as that in Japan. The only difference is that China only has 16 percent of its territory covered by forest. After realizing this problem, the government of China has carried out series of policies to protect its wilderness areas, and now we can see some progress in China's environment（After realizing…好像不支持TS哦）. In short, preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas is a good way to protect the environment of the nation.

Secondly, such wilderness areas are of great merit to scientists who major in realms such as biology and anthropology, and even archeology and so on. For biologists, wilderness areas are natural laboratories which could necessarily and efficiently help them to complete their important experiments and investigations, then human being will be more aware of the significance of environment and this knowledge will in return add to the protection of environment. For anthropologists, the cultures of the very few residents living in such areas are so mysterious and attractive that no one would like to miss it. And the relatively less developed ability of production there helps to study the origins of cultures, which is of considerable value for development. And for archeology, there might be some valuable inheritances from the residents’ predecessors.

Admittedly, it will take great effort and money to protect the publicly owned wilderness in natural state, since（题目中用的是even, 如果这里用since好像把范围缩小了） they are remote and inaccessible, so remote and inaccessible that only a few people ever live or just arrive there. And with the ever expansion of globalization and industrialization, as well as the short-term desire of the public, it turns out to be more and more difficult to preserve such natural areas. However, we should not abandon the ideas of protecting them, for the fact that we have not been aware of what consequences it will bring after the destruction of such wilderness areas yet. Perhaps there will be great catastrophe to human being, which may be comparable to the extent as shown by the movie ‘The Day after Tomorrow’, and then there is no chance for us to regret. Compared with recovering after destruction, we would rather choose to protect them from the very beginning.

To draw a conclusion, preserving publicly owned wilderness areas is a fairy tough task for the government and its people according to the situation of the human society at present, however, we still have to preserve them for the critical reason that wilderness areas are of great significance for our survival and prosperity, as is illustrated by the above discussions.

限时写成这样不错了，赞一个
加强一下例子的说服力会更好
个人意见，欢迎回拍

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=321010

yuemingjushiUID: 2108406

嗯，很好的建议，谢谢了

daikeshigreUID: 200759

Should government preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often very remote and thereby can only be attainable to only a few people, as the speaker claims? Judging from several human experiences(experience: 经验不可数，体验可数，这里我觉得应该是经验吧？), I tend to agree with the speaker's allegation that governments are responsible to preserve their publicly wilderness areas, however remote and inaccessible these places may be.

To begin with, wilderness areas, which are unfortunately becoming fewer and fewer, contribute a lot to prevent our environment from being more heavily polluted(further polluted). Common sense tell us that there are usually flourish forests in such wilderness areas, as well as relatively abundant diversity of animals, all of which are significant wealth of a nation. And good forests(good好像不合适吧, well-preserved) or other forms of wilderness can subtly guarantee a wonderful(口语化词汇，不是很好,green如何?) environment for human beings. For example, Japan, with 46 (据我所知是60多吧,64?)percent of its territory covered by forests, do not have any problems as the expansion of desert（desertification） or sand storms, while to the contrary, the condition of China is not so optimistic as that in Japan. The only difference is that China only has 16 percent of its territory covered by forest. After realizing this problem, the government of China has carried out series of policies to protect its wilderness areas, and now we can see some progress in China's environment（progress is noticeable这样合理些）. In short, preserve(preserving) the publicly owned wilderness areas is a good way to protect the environment of the nation.(感觉例子有点牵强)

Secondly, such wilderness areas are of great merit to scientists who major in realms such as biology and anthropology, and even archeology and so on. For biologists, wilderness areas are natural laboratories which could necessarily and efficiently help them to complete their important experiments and investigations, (体现不出因果关系)then human being will be more aware of the significance of environment and this knowledge will in return add to the protection of environment. For anthropologists, the cultures of the very few residents living in such areas are so mysterious and attractive that no one would like to miss(miss好像不合适,lose) it. And the relatively less developed ability of production(ability of production看不懂) there helps to study the origins of cultures, which is of considerable value for development(什么的development没写明白). And for archeology, there might be some valuable inheritances from the residents’ predecessors.

Admittedly, it will take great effort and money to protect the publicly owned wilderness in natural state, since they are remote and inaccessible, so remote and inaccessible that only a few people ever live or just arrive there.(这句话不太合适吧so那部分就不要了吧, 要不有些倪萍了) And with the ever expansion of globalization and industrialization, as well as the short-term desire of the public, it turns out to be more and more difficult to preserve such natural areas. However, we should not abandon the ideas of protecting them, for the fact that we have not been aware of what consequences it will bring after the destruction of such wilderness areas yet. (不是还意识到,是还不确定, we are still uncertain) Perhaps there will be great catastrophe to human being, which may be comparable to the extent as shown by the movie ‘The Day after Tomorrow’, and then there is no chance for us to regret. Compared with recovering after destruction, we would rather choose to protect them from the very beginning.

To draw a conclusion, preserving publicly owned wilderness areas is a fairy tough task for the government and its people according to the situation of the human society at present, however, we still have to preserve them for the critical reason that wilderness areas are of great significance for our survival and prosperity, as is illustrated by the above discussions.

首先很佩服楼主限时能写这么多,太伟大了,我怎么写怎么就上不了500.
另外,也许可能我自己的思路不太一样,感觉楼主在Government角度上论证地不够充分, Why ?How? Necessary?,
这只是本人的一点一点不太成熟的建议, 仅供参考

欢迎回砸！！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=321745

yuemingjushiUID: 2108406

嗯，获益匪浅