issue83 超时了，但想请大家帮忙看看观点是否合理，个人认为这个题挺难写的

nksisiUID: 2101023

“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.”

The speaker asserts that the government has the responsibility to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, although these are far away from our common lives and maybe only a few people can reach. The statement has two points. The one is that government should do the protection with the remote areas, which merely a few people could arrive. The other is that these seldom achieved areas should be kept in their natural state. In my opinion, both of the two are suspicious.

Admittedly, the government, as the highest political power and the most effective official in all over the country, certainly preserves every ground in the state. If a government fails to protect one area, even if it extremely remote and few population in it, the citizens were not trust it, even thought the government is no effective and useless. But it should be acknowledged that, as the experience from the society life, the government has another more virtual works to solve. As there are still many people starving, un-employing, and locking of a home, asking the government to pay a amount of attention to keep publicly owned wildness areas is nor a smart choice.

The areas where merely a small population lives can be preserved wonderfully by the local people and perhaps some organizations of philanthropy. The local people are more responsible than the government because they live there, as their hometown. The area, often regarding as the mother, will be given a good protection by its children. It is also cleared that the children know the mother better than the government, which only using the common method to resolve the problem, not suitable for all areas. The philanthropy, in the modern society, pays a more and more important role in public administration. These organizations, usually called NGO, have more effective mode and more money for protecting the wildness areas, for there are lots of special experts and volunteers who have more sympathy and skill to do the job.

As there many persons or organizations, even government, pay attention on the publicly owned wilderness, these areas should not be still in their natural state. For the simple reason, as most of us known, there are mostly sum kinds of mineral, such as coal, gas, even diamond in these seldom reached areas. The zones, far away from the main cities and culture often keep a natural situation, maybe covering forests, lefting mountains full of snow, or only being a widely desert. Teaching by the geologists, we discover that these places often hidden the mineral we most need. So, while preserve these areas, the government, or other powerful organizations should develop the important materials, not primitively keep their as natural.

In the finally analysis, I prefer the government should protect publicly wilderness areas as their duty, but not the main role, compared with the local people and NGO. Meanwhile preserving, we should discover the useful resources and exploit them, not only allow their in the natural state. Nevertheless keeping the nature as it does may have the function for the whole environment on the earth.

谢谢啦^_^

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-23 at 12:05 ]

liulin12369UID: 2112878

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.”

The speaker asserts that the government has the responsibility to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, although(这个词只可以放在开头，） these are far away from our common lives and maybe only a few people can reach. The statement has two points. The one is that government should do the protection with the remote areas, which merely a few people could arrive. The other is that these seldom achieved areas should be kept in their natural state. In my opinion, both of the two are suspicious.

Admittedly, the government, as the highest political power and the most effective official in all over the country, certainly preserves every ground in the state.（你的意思说政府当然在保护国家的每一寸土地，如果没有保存好，就得不到公民的信任了，这样说太牵强了点吧？） If a government fails to protect one area, even if it extremely remote and few population in it, the citizens were not trust it, even thought the government is no effective and useless. （TS没有包含BUT之后的内容）But it should be acknowledged that, as the experience from the society life, the government has another more virtual works to solve. As there are still many people starving, un-employing, and locking of a home, asking the government to pay a amount of attention to keep publicly owned wildness areas is nor a smart choice.（前半段在 support 你的TS,后半段背叛了TS，可以让步，但是一段的意思应该一致，对不？）这一段估计谈需要保护野生环境，大部分需要保护。

The areas where merely a small population lives can be preserved wonderfully（这个词最好换下，不好用来修饰preserve的说） by the local people and perhaps some organizations of philanthropy. The local people are more responsible than the government because they live there, as their hometown. The area, often regarding as the mother, will be given a good protection by its children. It is also cleared that the children know the mother better than the government, which only using the common method to resolve the problem, not suitable for all areas. （政府并不一定是用common method ，这种情况只是作者假设的，可以当作论据吗？）The philanthropy, in the modern society, pays a more and more important role in public administration. These organizations, usually called NGO, have more effective mode and more money for protecting the wildness areas, for there are lots of special experts and volunteers who have more sympathy and skill to do the job.（慈善机构在这方面的有利优势，并没有说的很好，政府有更强大的财力和人力，相对一个机构来说）这一段的论证有点牵强的说，上一段让步段的后半段应该拿下来，你这里的观点我猜想是，政府对偏远的地区不要来插手了，可以谈2方面，1，政府财政上的困难 ，而且还有很多别的事物需要解决2，地方自己可以处理好这一点，或者污染，损害很小，用不着保护）

As there many persons or organizations, even government, pay attention on the publicly owned wilderness, these areas should not be still in their natural state. For the simple reason, as most of us known, there are mostly sum kinds of mineral, such as coal, gas, even diamond in these seldom reached areas. The zones, far away from the main cities and culture often keep a natural situation, maybe covering forests, lefting mountains full of snow, or only being a widely desert. Teaching（teached) by the geologists, we discover that these places often hidden the mineral we most need. So, while preserve these areas, the government, or other powerful organizations should develop the important materials, not primitively keep their as natural.(观点很新颖，环境保护联系到了资源开发，资源开发不能被环境保护限制住的观点很新颖的说，哈哈，学习ing,如果把2者关系说完善更好了。可以说对于那些有可能开发的野生区域，在不破坏环境的前提下，不要一味的保护，有资源还是要开发，指出来观点，感觉更好）

In the finally analysis, I prefer the government should protect publicly wilderness areas as their duty, but not the main role, compared with the local people and NGO.（此句表意不明） Meanwhile preserving, we should discover the useful resources and exploit them, not only allow their in the natural state. Nevertheless keeping the nature as it does may have the function for the whole environment on the earth.

感觉词句结构有待提高，破题基本没问题，观点很新颖，但是说的不太清楚，一起加油~~~

claymanUID: 2102470

我也拍！关于结构和观点，我认为第二段TS说国家保卫领土是义务，这个未免稍微扯远了些。从第一段后面的论述看，楼主应该着重表达的意思应该是：国家对于那些非常偏远的地区不应过多介入，因为有很多别的重要的事情。但这样的话，和第三段重复，所以第二段应当大改。第三、四段观点非传统，很新颖，如果论证充分未尝不可，其中问题2楼的说过了。这样的破题对我还是很有启发意义的说，学习之。

最后因为楼主的句子很成问题，我挑几句改一下。你的文章在word里已经没错了，呵呵，不过：
第二段
If a government fails to protect one area, even if it extremely remote and few population in it, the citizens were not trust it, even thought the government is no effective and useless.
第二分句无谓语，且不必要用If。后两个分句最好使用虚拟语气，第三分句没理由使用被动语气。
if a government fails to protect a single area, even it is extremely remote and have little population,  citizens would not trust  the government anymore,and even regard it inefficient and useless.
第三段
It is also cleared that the children know the mother better than the government, which only using the common method to resolve the problem, not suitable for all areas.
cleard的意思不是你想的那个。which后面的分句依然没有谓语, 又乱用the。不要用which引导
it is also clear that the children know their mother better than the government who only uses common method to.....

第四段
As there many persons or organizations, even government, pay attention on the publicly owned wilderness, these areas should not be still in their natural state.
as引导的句子老问题，没谓语。不要认为后面的pay是谓语。你参照前面自己改一个吧。
The zones, far away from the main cities and culture often keep a natural situation, maybe covering forests, lefting mountains full of snow, or only being a widely desert.
这个也很可爱的把主句的谓语弄没了^_^!从句也不幸写错，far away from the main cities是形容zones，整个可以认为是一个形容词。那么and后也应当是类似的成分，但是这里出现了一个动词....widely是副词，不能修饰名词的说...l
These zones, far away from the main cities and remained in natural state, might be virgin forest dotted with snow-capped mountains ,or only a wild desert.


虽然有进步，不过强烈建议楼主先练习阅读复杂句（杨鹏？），然后再模仿着表达同样的意思，熟悉之后再用到作文里。尤其你从句里套从句的时候，基本都有问题。我的修改仅做参考，因为我也常常犯些错自己还不知道。

[ Last edited by clayman on 2005-7-23 at 01:24 ]

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

The speaker asserts that the government has the responsibility to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, although these are far away from our common lives and maybe only a few people can reach. The statement has two points. The one is that government should do the protection with the remote areas, which merely a few people could arrive. The other is that these seldom achieved areas should be kept in their natural state.不知道这样写的方式是否可取，我觉得不用分析题目，不用the one……the other…… In my opinion, both of the two are suspicious.

Admittedly, the government, as the highest political power and the most effective official in all over the country, certainly preserves every ground in the state. If a government fails to protect one area, even if it extremely remote and few population in it, the citizens were not trust it,even thought the government is no effective and useless.严重了 But it should be acknowledged that, as the experience from the society life, the government has another more virtual works to solve. As there are still many people starving, un-employing, and locking of a home, asking the government to pay a amount of attention to keep publicly owned wildness areas is nor a smart choice.

The areas where merely a small population lives can be preserved wonderfully by the local people and perhaps some organizations of philanthropy. The local people are more responsible than the government because they live there, as their hometown. The area, often regarding as the mother, will be given a good protection by its children. It is also cleared that the children know the mother better than the government, which only using the common method to resolve the problem, not suitable for all areas. 这个论证不够strong,因为题目说明accessible to only a few peopleThe philanthropy, in the modern society, pays a more and more important role in public administration. These organizations, usually called NGO, have more effective mode and more money for protecting the wildness areas, for there are lots of special experts and volunteers who have more sympathy and skill to do the job.

As there many persons or organizations, even government, pay attention on the publicly owned wilderness, these areas should not be still in their natural state. For the simple reason, as most of us known, there are mostly sum kinds of mineral, such as coal, gas, even diamond in these seldom reached areas. The zones, far away from the main cities and culture often keep a natural situation, maybe covering forests, lefting mountains full of snow, or only being a widely desert. Teaching by the geologists, we discover that these places often hidden the mineral we most need. So, while preserve these areas, the government, or other powerful organizations should develop the important materials, not primitively keep their as natural.建议把这段论述顺序调整一下，先说明这些地方也许有丰富的资源，然后再写政府可以不keep its natural state

In the finally analysis, I prefer the government should protect publicly wilderness areas as their duty, but not the main role, compared with the local people and NGO. Meanwhile preserving, we should discover the useful resources and exploit them, not only allow their in the natural state. Nevertheless keeping the nature as it does may have the function for the whole environment on the earth.
总体来说写得蛮好的，body 2 我觉得不够strong，可以修改一下，body 3的想法挺独特，值得学习，加油~~~

nksisiUID: 2101023

谢谢大家！^_^，无论是鼓励还是批评！真的谢啦！
我的语法和句法真成问题！！汗～～～
努力努力！！
再谢一下！^_^