Issue83 同主题 交作业

Chloroplast923UID：207486

题目:
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."        

提纲:
1.首段,是否保护荒地应视情况而定
2.对于大面积且很多生物,包括一些珍稀生物,的荒地,应维持原状,最多开发成自然公园
3.小面积的荒地另当别论,因为人口不断增长,土地不会变多.人口密度会越来越大.建筑只越起越高
4.高楼引起光污染,视另一种破坏环境的形式
5.总结,应综合个方面因素考虑


正文:  474words

    There are two opinions in the society about what should government do to the
publicly owned wilderness areas. One is that government should preserve them in their
natural state, enventhough these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible
to only a few people. This opinion is mostly strongly supported by environmentalists.
But some people hope government to develop these areas, like the new Disneyland in
Hongkong. In my point of view, these two opinions are both reasonable in some aspects. We should analyze this subject in dialectic manners.

    Firstly, in nowadays, because people destroy the environment in such a high speed
that environment can not renew by itself, we need to protect it by keeping the places
which are still wild in their natural state to keep the balance of biosphere. If the
publicly owned wilderness area is large, and many species of life-forms, including
some very rare species, live there forming a complex dependent ecosphere, which once
be interrupted will be hard to renew, government is better to preserve it in its
natural state or to develop it to be a natural park without disturbing the balance in
this area, like the Yellow Stone Park. In the latter case, we have more places to spend our holidays meanwhile do not destroy environment.

    However, if the area of the wildland is small and only a few common species live
there. We should consider this situation in another way. Because now we face a big
problem that we have a continuously increasing population in cities, while we do not
have a continuously increasing amount of ground. If government totally do not develop
the publicly owned wilderness areas, the acreage of city will be limitted, and the
density of population will grows large. Then where can we place this people more than
ever before? The only thing we can do to solve this problem is to build constructions
higner and higher.

    But these higher and higher constructions will lead to serious environmental
problems. For instance, the great amount of glass windows of high buildings and large
mansions can produce a serious pollution called light pollution, which weaks people's
eyesight and can even cause skin cancer. And the high density of high buildings in
cities can block the wind flowing, which delays the speed of heat excaping and make a
lot of people suffer from hot disaster in summer. Is it right for us to produce such
environmental problems while we want to avoid desyroying environmental balance?

    In a word, when judging whether the government should preserve publicly owned
wilderness areas in their natural state or develop them as extend of cities, we can
not draw a conclusion hastily without exceptions, but we should careful consider the
actual situation and balance influencing factors in all aspects. Only in this way can
be make a reasonable verdict.

[ Last edited by Chloroplast923 on 2005-7-30 at 21:48 ]

lemon8427UID：2105379

提纲里“是否保留荒地应视情况而定”的翻译错了！！！应该是野生动物保护区！！所以是不是整篇文章的立足点就偏误了呢？

Chloroplast923UID：207486

整个题目在猴哥的书上翻译是:
政府应该保护那些疆域范围内的偏远地区,尽管这些地区人烟稀少

另一本书上也只是说" wilderness areas " 为荒凉地区啊

楼上的在哪里找到 " 野生动物保护区 " 这个翻译的呢?

superkiddUID：2120413

这篇时本期同主题的题目
http://211.151.90.54/bbs/viewthr ... &extra=page%3D1
里面解释为保留了自然生态环境，人类活动被限制的地方

superkiddUID：2120413

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."        

提纲:
1.首段,是否保护荒地应视情况而定
2.对于大面积且很多生物,包括一些珍稀生物,的荒地,应维持原状,最多开发成自然公园
3.小面积的荒地另当别论,因为人口不断增长,土地不会变多.人口密度会越来越大.建筑只越起越高
4.高楼引起光污染,视另一种破坏环境的形式
5.总结,应综合个方面因素考虑


正文:  474words

    There are two opinions in the society about what should government do to the publicly owned wilderness areas. One is that government should preserve them in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people. This opinion is mostly strongly supported by environmentalists. But some people hope government to develop these areas, like the new Disneyland in HongKong. In my point of view, these two opinions are both reasonable in some aspects. We should analyze this subject in dialectic manners.

    Firstly, in nowadays, because people destroy the environment in such a high speed that environment can not renew by itself, we need to protect it by keeping the places which are still wild in their natural state to keep the balance of biosphere. If the publicly owned wilderness area is large, and many species of life-forms, including some very rare species, live there forming a complex dependent ecosphere, which once be interrupted will be hard to renew, government is better to preserve it in its natural state or to develop it to be a natural park without disturbing the balance in this area, like the Yellow Stone Park.这个句子是不是太长了，呵呵。是否可以尝试用两个或者三个稍短的句子 In the latter case, we have more places to spend our holidays meanwhile do not destroy environment.

    However, if the area of the wildland is small and only a few common species live there. We should consider this situation in another way. Because now we face a big problem that we have a continuously increasing population in cities, while we do not have a continuously increasing amount of ground. If government totally do not develop the publicly owned wilderness areas, the acreage of city will be limited, and the density of population will grows large. Then where can we place this people more than ever before? The only thing we can do to solve this problem is to build constructions higher and higher.

    But these higher and higher constructions will lead to serious environmental problems. For instance, the great amount of glass windows of high buildings and large mansions can produce a serious pollution called light pollution, which weaksweakens people's eyesight and can even cause skin cancer. And the high density of high buildings in cities can block the wind flowing, which delays the speed of heat excaping是哪个单词？ and make a lot of people suffer from hot disaster in summer. Is it right for us to produce such environmental problems while we want to avoid desyroying destroyingenvironmental balance?

    In a word, when judging whether the government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state or develop them as extend of cities, we can not draw a conclusion hastily without exceptions, but we should carefulcarefully consider the actual situation and balance influencing factors in all aspects. Only in this way can be make a reasonable verdict.
文章整体思路清晰，逻辑较清楚，结构没有问题。但是遣词造句还显得有些单一，某些地方的单词使用不太合理。另外，有几处拼写错误。

飞啊~飞UID：2121330

Issue83 同主题 交作业

题目:
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."        

提纲:
1.首段,是否保护荒地应视情况而定
2.对于大面积且很多生物,包括一些珍稀生物,的荒地,应维持原状,最多开发成自然公园
3.小面积的荒地另当别论,因为人口不断增长,土地不会变多.人口密度会越来越大.建筑只越起越高
4.高楼引起光污染,视另一种破坏环境的形式
5.总结,应综合个方面因素考虑


正文:  474words

    There are two opinions in the society about what should government do to the
publicly owned wilderness areas. One is that government should preserve them in their
natural state, enventhough [spelling mistake]these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible
to only a few people. This opinion is mostly strongly supported by environmentalists.
But some people hope government to develop these areas, like the new Disneyland in
Hongkong.[Hong Kong] In my point of view, these two opinions are both reasonable in some aspects. We should analyze this subject in dialectic manners.

    Firstly, in nowadays, because people destroy the environment in such a high speed
that environment can not renew by itself, we need to protect it by keeping the places
which are still wild in their natural state to keep the balance of biosphere.[ If the
publicly owned wilderness area is large, and many species of life-forms, including
some very rare species, live there forming a complex dependent ecosphere, (which once
be interrupted will be hard to renew用虚拟), government is better to preserve it in its
natural state or to develop it to be a natural park without disturbing the balance in
this area, like the Yellow Stone Park. 这也太长了吧]In the latter case, we have more places to spend our holidays meanwhile do not destroy environment.两种情况还是分开说的比较条理清楚。另外，主题句是说破坏严重，所以需要保护。段内就应该讲破坏有多严重阿，或者你就干脆安提钢那样些，再把破坏摆在第二句，作背景。

   [ However, if the area of the wildland is small and only a few common species live
there. We should consider this situation in another way.这应该是一整句话if…then…] Because now we face a big
problem that we have a continuously increasing population in cities, while we do not
have a continuously increasing amount of ground. If government totally do [does]not develop
the publicly owned wilderness areas, the acreage of city will be limited, and the
density of population will grows large[换rapidly好点吧]. Then where can we place this people more than
ever before[additional people ]? The only thing we can do to solve this problem is to build constructions
higner [spelling]and higher. 不是提出解决方案了吗？我理解你的意思，但是觉得应该紧扣主题，解决方案只有一个—--开垦野地

    But these higher and higher constructions will lead to serious environmental
problems.[哦，看到这里才理解你的意思。峰回路转啊！老米会不会又和我一样的困惑呢.还是在主题句就讲清楚把] For instance, the great amount of glass windows of high buildings and large
mansions can produce a serious pollution called light pollution, which weaks[weeks] people's
eyesight and can even cause skin cancer. And the high density of high buildings in
cities can block the wind flowing, which delays the speed of heat excaping [spelling]and make a
lot of people suffer from hot disaster in summer. Is it right for us to produce such
environmental problems while we want to avoid desyroying environmental balance?再加一句：所以我们只有开垦野地，以减少环境污染。不然有点跑

    In a word, when judging whether the government should preserve publicly owned
wilderness areas in their natural state or develop them as extend of cities, we can
not draw a conclusion hastily without exceptions, but we should careful consider the
actual situation and balance influencing factors in all aspects. Only in this way can
be make a reasonable verdict.

monkeydryUID：183691

你的提纲开拓了偶的思路...