Issue83 同主题交作业了~~~欢迎战友们的砖头

fircattyUID：166248

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."
基本同意
1有利于保护濒危动物，保护生态平衡
2有利于人自身的生存
3当然，有些地方需要改造

I agree that the government should preserve some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, no matter how remote they are and how accessible to people. While some publicly owned wilderness areas such as deserts should be improved by government.

To begin with, the fact that whether the wilderness areas are accessible to many people has nothing to do with the preservation of those areas. Viewing from another angle, when the publicly owned remote areas are hardly accessible to people, which means that people affect little to those places, the areas are much more valuable for government to preserve. In fact, many species are extinct manly due to the changes of their environment such as lack of the preys and air pollution, which, if we get down to the details, are caused or accelerate by human behaviour to a great extent. For instance, air pollution becomes serious by the exhaust of the vehicles and factories, excessive hunting has a relation, more or less, to the lack of preys for many species. Since every species has its own contribution to keeping the balance of ecosystem, preserving the wilderness areas is a logic method to pretect the endangered species who cannot live in the changed human environment but still exist in the natural wilderness areas, and then to help preseve the ecosystem in the end.

Moreover, preserving some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent, has a close relation to the problem of human survival. For instance, Amazon tropical rain forests in Brazil, which are called "the lungs of the earth", produce twenty percent of oxgen we breathe every year. Without relative pretection of the government, the precious tropical rain forests have reduced quickly. Though there are few people living there, even accessible to those areas, the government should still preserve the wilderness areas in their natual state in that preseving the wild areas are to a large degree preserving ourselves.

However, if alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, the government certainly should not insist keeping their natural state. The improvement such as transforming deserts into grassland, making the bare mountain full of mountain plants and the like would definitely lead the earth a more fitful place to live, both for human and other species. Under the circumstance, it is not only right but also necessary to alter the condition of some wilderness areas rather than keeping them in their natural states.

To sum up, the government should selectively decide whether a wilderness area should be preserved, but the selection has nothing to do with whether the area is accessible to many human. We should do our utmost to preserve the natural areas that are vital to our environment and existence, and meanwhile remodel the wilderness areas that are harmful for the live of creatures in the Earth.

[ Last edited by fircatty on 2005-7-30 at 18:29 ]

bbdouUID：2104449

I agree that the government should preserve some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, no matter how remote they are and how accessible to people. While some publicly owned wilderness areas such as deserts should be improved by government.提出论点，支持政府行为应该是how unaccessible

To begin with, the fact that whether the wilderness areas are accessible to many people has nothing to do with the preservation of those areas. Viewing from another angle, when the publicly owned remote areas are hardly accessible to people, which means that people affect little to those places, the areas are much more valuable for government to preserve. In fact, many species are extinct manly due to the changes of their environment such as lack of the preys and air pollution, which, if we get down to the details, are caused or accelerate by human behaviour to a great extent. For instance, air pollution becomes serious by the exhaust of the vehicles and factories, excessive hunting has a relation, more or less, to the lack of preys for many species. Since every species has its own contribution to keeping the balance of ecosystem, preserving the wilderness areas is a logic method to pretect the endangered species who cannot live in the changed human environment but still exist in the natural wilderness areas, and then to help preseve the ecosystem in the end.

Moreover, preserving some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent, has a close relation to the problem of human survival. For instance, Amazon tropical rain forests in Brazil, which are called "the lungs of the earth", produce twenty percent of oxgen we breathe every year. Without relative pretection of the government, the precious tropical rain forests have reduced quickly. Though there are few people living there, even accessible to those areas, the government should still preserve the wilderness areas in their natual state in that preseving the wild areas are to a large degree preserving ourselves.

However, if alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, the government certainly should not insist keeping their natural state. The improvement such as transforming deserts into grassland, making the bare mountain full of mountain plants and the like would definitely lead the earth a more fitful place to live, both for human and other species. Under the circumstance, it is not only right but also necessary to alter the condition of some wilderness areas rather than keeping them in their natural states.这块如果加点例子就丰满了：）

To sum up, the government should selectively decide whether a wilderness area should be preserved, but the selection has nothing to do with whether the area is accessible to many human. We should do our utmost to preserve the natural areas that are vital to our environment and existence, and meanwhile remodel the wilderness areas that are harmful for the live of creatures in the Earth.

fircattyUID：166248

Thx to bbdou

alcestisUID：2101945

I agree that the government should preserve some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, no matter how remote they are and how accessibleunaccessible to people. While some publicly owned wilderness areas such as deserts should be improved by government.

To begin with, the fact that whether the wilderness areas are accessible to many people has nothing to do with the preservation of those areas.这个地方最好明确的讲出原因——保护珍稀物种，那样才像ts Viewing from another angle, when the publicly owned remote areas are hardly accessible to people, which means that people affect little to those places, the areas are much more valuable for government to preserve这一句和后面的联系不强，最好再详细说明，比如因为人的影响少所以生态好，有许多珍稀动物. In fact, many species are extinct manlymainly? due to the changes of their environment such as lack of the preys and air pollution, which, if we get down to the details, are caused or accelerate by human behaviour to a great extent. For instance, air pollution becomes serious by the exhaust of the vehicles and factories, excessive hunting has a relation, more or less, to the lack of preys for many species. Since every species has its own contribution to keeping the balance of ecosystem, preserving the wilderness areas is a logic method to pretect the endangered species who cannot live in the changed human environmentenvironment changed by human but still exist in the natural wilderness areas, and then to help preseve the ecosystem in the end.

Moreover, preserving some publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, to some extent, has a close relation to the problem of human survival. For instance, Amazon tropical rain forests in Brazil, which are called "the lungs of the earth", produce twenty percent of oxgen we breathe every year. Without relative pretection of the government, the precious tropical rain forests have reduced quickly.最好再进一步说明雨林减少对人类的坏影响，以更好回应ts Though there are few people living there, even accessible to those areas, the government should still preserve the wilderness areas in their natual state in that preseving the wild areas are to a large degree preserving ourselves.

However, if alterations of certain wilderness areas are beneficial to both environment and human society, the government certainly should not insist keeping their natural state. The improvement such as transforming deserts into grassland, making the bare mountain full of mountain plants and the like would definitely lead the earth a more fitful place to live, both for human and other species. Under the circumstance, it is not only right but also necessary to alter the condition of some wilderness areas rather than keeping them in their natural states.

To sum up, the government should selectively decide whether a wilderness area should be preserved, but the selection has nothing to do with whether the area is accessible to many human. We should do our utmost to preserve the natural areas that are vital to our environment and existence, and meanwhile remodel the wilderness areas that are harmful for the live of creatures in the Earth.

总结：
大结构很好,段内结构尚有待完善
语言有点粗糙，单词拼写错误多，如果是限时则可以理解 哈哈
结尾不错

因为知道你拍人很认真所以特地和你换砖头来了
我的同题：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=310689

alcestisUID：2101945

对了，b3可以加以色列改造沙漠成绿洲的例子