issue83 主题写作

abigredUID: 154473

谢谢各位帮我修改，很珍惜你们的意见:)

Issue83  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：40分2秒     658 words
从2005年7月30日18时17分到2005年7月30日18时40分
------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------
Some people may argue that the publicly owned wilderness areas should be preserved, whatever the cost is. On the contrary, some people may against this idea for the reason that government should not invest too much money on those extremely remote areas. As a person highly-aware of environmental balance, I strongly contend that it is a meaningful act for the government to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas, even if those areas are seldom accessible to people.

To begin with, the reality of our environment alarms us of the importance to persevere those wilderness areas. With the development of economy and technology, we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity. However, as we further introspect, we will easily find the price of this prosperity is too high.  Many species, once would become extinct at a very slow rate due to the natural selection, have faced the danger of dying out, because of their habitats are heavily polluted or no longer exists. The ancient forests also encounter the same problem-----the deforestation is happening every minute and every second.  Urbanization, industrialization and many other human activities should be responsible for all this problems. When we feel proud about our prosperous economy, our flourishing culture, our fast-developing technology, we, human beings, should also take the blame for the natural imbalance. In this sense, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas really serves as a way to make up, or to say a precaution to save the nature, and in a not dissimilar way, to save ourselves.

Some people may argue that those remote areas, especially those extremely ones, are only accessible to only a few people, thus they do not need any man-made protection. Although this opinion has some merit with respect to now, I think this to be short-sighted when we take the future into account. We should not lose sight to the truth that the development of the society is striding at such a fast pace that even the remote areas now will become easily accessible in the near future. To think about the dissertation. This is the same with the pollution of wilderness areas. If we hold the far-sighted outlook, we will not be blinded by the superficial phenomenon.

Secondly, to preserve those publicly owned wilderness areas will bring invaluable benefits to human. Any wise researchers have already share the belief that those  animals and plants in  wilderness areas provide hints to decipher human genes, and many of them have great value in medical care. And take to the plants, especially the forests. They play a significant role in keeping the balance of our ecosystem. The reality that greenhouse effect is well-known to scientists, even to common people. In a word, even if we want to weigh the money spent on preservation and the benefits gained from preservation, doubtless, the latter should be much larger.

As we mention above, the importance and benefits of preserving the wilderness areas will become the major reason for the governmental support. Firstly, the publicly owned wilderness areas should receive financial support from the government. As public goods, the preservation of wilderness areas will not be effective in the mechanics of free market. Secondly, support from government is not limited to merely financial support, but also include policies and laws. In some cases, laws and policies are more powerful, especially in the long run. Under the protection of them, many animals can survive without the threat of over-haunting, and many plants should not have to face the danger which the unreasonable city-expansion brings. By financial and lawful protection, the wilderness areas can expect nature balance.

To sum up, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, no matter whether they are easily accessible or not, is well worthy the money and effort from the government.  We should not neglect our responsibility in protecting the nature, for it is our human beings that play a major role in the environmental problems.

[ Last edited by abigred on 2005-7-31 at 00:10 ]

AlexandraUID: 185174

一会 回你贴

AlexandraUID: 185174

------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------
Some people may argue that the publicly owned wilderness areas should be preserved, whatever the cost is. On the contrary, some people may against this idea for the reason that government should not invest too much money on those extremely remote areas. As a person highly-aware of environmental balance, I strongly contend that it is a meaningful act for the government to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas, even if those areas are seldom accessible to people.

To begin with, the reality of our environment alarms us of the importance to persevere those wilderness areas. With the development of economy and technology, we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity. However, as we further introspect, we will easily find the price of this prosperity is too high.  Many species, once would become extinct at a very slow rate due to the natural selection, have faced the danger of dying out, because of their habitats are heavily polluted or no longer exists. The ancient forests also encounter the same problem-----the deforestation is happening every minute and every second.  Urbanization, industrialization and many other human activities should be responsible for all this problems. When we feel proud about our prosperous economy, our flourishing culture, our fast-developing technology, we, human beings, should also take the blame for the natural imbalance. In this sense, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas really serves as a way to make up, or to say a precaution to save the nature, and in a not dissimilar way, to save ourselves.

Some people may argue that those remote areas, especially those extremely ones, are only accessible to only a few people, thus they do not need any man-made protection. Although this opinion has some merit with respect to now, I think this to be short-sighted when we take the future into account [这句话，再看看]. We should not lose sight to the truth that the development of the society is striding at such a fast pace that even the remote areas now will become easily accessible in the near future. To think about the dissertation. [这里，你作为单独一句话？ 没了？好象有点HOP， 我的看法是 后面的，不要大写，] This is the same with the pollution of wilderness areas. If we hold the far-sighted outlook, we will not be blinded by the superficial phenomenon.

Secondly, to preserve those publicly owned wilderness areas will bring invaluable benefits to human. Any wise researchers have already share the belief that those animals and plants in  wilderness areas provide hints to decipher human genes, and many of them have great value in medical care. And take to the plants, especially the forests.   [ 这里看法 同上]  They play a significant role in keeping the balance of our ecosystem. The reality that greenhouse effect is well-known [好象可以 不用连起来。] to scientists, even to common people. In a word, even if we want to weigh the money spent on preservation and the benefits gained from preservation, doubtless, the latter should be much larger.

As we mention above, the importance and benefits of preserving the wilderness areas will become the major reason for the governmental support. Firstly, the publicly owned wilderness areas should receive financial support from the government. As public goods, the preservation of wilderness areas will not be effective in the mechanics of free market. Secondly, support from government is not limited to merely financial support, but also include policies and laws. In some cases, laws and policies are more powerful, especially in the long run. Under the protection of them, many animals can survive without the threat of over-haunting, and many plants should not have to face the danger which the unreasonable city-expansion brings. By financial and lawful protection, the wilderness areas can expect nature balance.

To sum up, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, no matter whether they are easily accessible or not, is well worthy the money and effort from the government.  We should not neglect our responsibility in protecting the nature, for it is our human beings that play a major role in the environmental problems.

[没有提纲，看得我好费劲啊。
你的句子 好长啊。
开头有点长啊，其实，也没有什么不好啦

写得不错，我可写不了这么好啊。
而且你能在 有效时间内，写这么多字， 我好羡慕啊！
有一点，稍注意一下， 前后句子， 句式的 变化。 再纵看， 你的句式 很喜欢用“As public goods, the preservation of wilderness 。。。” 这样类似的， 用得多， 显得~~~~~~~~~~
不过 从我的角度， 你写得 真不错。 向你学习啊
尤其，你有 很多好词，词汇量 好大啊。

还有一点， 在各论点 和各分论点之间的 逻辑联系词， 稍 看看，有没有更适合你的了， 觉得 不太 好， 改改会更好。]

d_messiahUID: 177468

40分钟搞定这么一篇文章，很强的说

Some people may argue that the publicly owned wilderness areas should be preserved, whatever the cost is. On the contrary, some people may against this idea for the reason that government should not invest too much money on those extremely remote areas. As a person highly-aware of environmental balance, I strongly contend that it is a meaningful act for the government to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas, even if those areas are seldom accessible to people.

To begin with, the reality of our environment alarms us of the importance to persevere those wilderness areas. With the development of economy and technology, we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity. However, as we further introspect, we will easily find the price of this prosperity is too high.  Many species, once would become extinct at a very slow rate due to the natural selection, have faced the danger of dying out, because of their habitats are heavily polluted or no longer exists？？？. The ancient forests also encounter the same problem-----the deforestation is happening every minute and every second.  Urbanization, industrialization and many other human activities should be responsible for all this problems. When we feel proud about our prosperous economy, our flourishing culture, our fast-developing technology, we, human beings, should also take the blame for the natural imbalance. In this sense, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas really serves as a way to make up, or to say a precaution to save the nature, and in a not dissimilar way双否，用的好！！！, to save ourselves. 你里面举了大量的人类给环境的负面影响，后面得出保护荒芜地区是一种......方法，感觉这之间有些跳跃，TS和主题好像都很好，就是觉得例证时从别的题里搬来的，是否可以考虑分析一下，让他们可以自然的衔接起来呢？

Some people may argue that those remote areas, especially those extremely ones, are only accessible to only a few people, thus they do not need any man-made protection. Although this opinion has some merit with respect to now, I think this to be short-sighted when we take the future into account. We should not lose sight to不错的说！ the truth that the development of the society is striding at such a fast pace that even the remote areas now will become easily accessible in the near future. To think about the dissertation. This is the same with the pollution of wilderness areas. If we hold the far-sighted outlook, we will not be blinded by the superficial phenomenon.

Secondly, to preserve those publicly owned wilderness areas will bring invaluable benefits to human. Any wise researchers have already share the belief好！ that those  animals and plants in  wilderness areas provide hints to decipher human genes, and many of them have great value in medical care. And 和前面那个and有些拗口了，争取换一个词，相信你会做得很好的take to the plants, especially the forests. They play a significant role in keeping the balance of our ecosystem. The reality that greenhouse effect ？the greenhouse effect(, as a reality,)is well-known to scientists, even to common people. In a word, even if we want to weigh the money spent on preservation and the benefits gained from preservation, doubtless, the latter should be much larger.

As we mention above, the importance and benefits of preserving the wilderness areas will become the major reason for the governmental support. Firstly, the publicly owned wilderness areas should receive financial support from the government. As public goods, the preservation of wilderness areas will not be effective in the mechanics of free market. Secondly, support from government is not limited to merely financial support, but also include policies and laws. In some cases, laws and policies are more powerful, especially in the long run. Under the protection of them, many animals can survive without the threat of over-haunting, and many plants should not have to face the danger which the unreasonable city-expansion brings. By financial and lawful protection, the wilderness areas can expect nature balance.

To sum up, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, no matter whether they are easily accessible or not, is well worthy the money and effort from the government.  We should not neglect our responsibility in protecting the nature, for it is our human beings that play a major role in the environmental problems.


写的很好，从语言角度来说，看出来了你在尽量避免一些所谓的俗套的词语和短语
BODY部分的论点部分，有些想法，不过自己也不是很确定，等我想好了，再回

czzbUID: 208982

觉得你的逻辑和结构已经很好了 还是提一点意见

首先 为什么破坏很严重就需要保护 你没有把wildness的重要性在bod1讲出来 而且wildness也不是environment

再有就是你对反面的意见理解的比较简单 给你补出两点

governmemt resources is limited
we should develop such areas for the sake of local residents

abigredUID: 154473

谢谢各位：）受益良多，每次都会把大家的意见收集下来慢慢琢磨的

冰阳UID: 201604

Some people may argue that the publicly owned wilderness areas should be preserved, whatever the cost is. On the contrary, some people may against this idea for the reason that government should not invest too much money on those extremely remote areas. As a person highly-aware of environmental balance, I strongly contend that it is a meaningful act for the government to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas, even if those areas are seldom accessible to people.

To begin with, the reality of our environment alarms us of the importance to persevere those wilderness areas. With the development of economy and technology, we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity. However, as we further introspect, (we--our) we will easily find the price of this prosperity is too high. (个人觉得此处用too好像不大好)  Many species, once would become extinct at a very slow rate due to the natural selection,（定语从句没有标志词） have faced the danger of dying out, because of their habitats are heavily polluted or no longer exists（because of 后面加名词而不是句子）. The ancient forests also encounter the same problem-----the deforestation is happening every minute and every second.  Urbanization, industrialization and many other human activities should be responsible for all this problems. When we feel proud about our prosperous economy, our flourishing culture, our fast-developing technology, we, human beings, should also take the blame for the natural imbalance. In this sense, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas really serves as a way to make up, or to say a precaution to save the nature, and in a not dissimilar way, to save us.

Some people may argue that those remote areas, especially those extremely ones, are only accessible to only a few people, thus they do not need any man-made protection. Although this opinion has some merit with respect to now, I think this to be short-sighted（shortsighted） when we take the future into account. We should not lose sight to the truth that the development of the society is striding at such a fast pace that even the remote areas now will become easily accessible in the near future. To think about the dissertation. This is the same with the pollution of wilderness areas. If we hold the far-sighted outlook, we will not be blinded by the superficial phenomenon.

Secondly, to preserve those publicly owned wilderness areas will bring invaluable benefits to human. Any wise researchers have already share the belief that those animals and plants in wilderness areas provide hints to decipher human genes, and many of them have great value in medical care. And take to the plants, especially the forests. They play a significant role in keeping the balance of our ecosystem. The reality that greenhouse effect is well-known to scientists, even to common people（上两句话和第一段重复了吧）. In a word, even if we want to weigh the money spent on preservation and the benefits gained from preservation, doubtless, the latter should be much larger.

As we mention above, the importance and benefits of preserving the wilderness areas will become the major reason for the governmental support. Firstly, the publicly owned wilderness areas should receive financial support from the government. As public goods, the preservation of wilderness areas will not be effective in the mechanics of free market. Secondly, support from government is not limited to merely financial support, but also include policies and laws. In some cases, laws and policies are more powerful, especially in the long run. Under the protection of them, many animals can survive without the threat of over-haunting（hunting）, and many plants should not have to face the danger which the unreasonable city-expansion brings. By financial and lawful protection, the wilderness areas can expect nature balance.

To sum up, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, no matter whether they are easily accessible or not, is well worthy the money and effort from the government.  We should not neglect our responsibility in protecting the nature, for it is our human beings that play a major role in the environmental problems.




我觉得你的思路很清晰，明确，但语言句式的变化还不是特别出色

冰阳UID: 201604

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

htpengUID: 2115584

------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------
Some people may argue that the publicly owned wilderness areas should be preserved, whatever the cost is. On the contrary, someother people may against介词作谓语？ this idea for the reason that government should not invest too much money on those extremely remote areas. As a person highly-aware of environmental balance, I strongly contend that it is a meaningful act for the government to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas, even if those areas are seldom accessible to people.

To begin with, the reality of our environment alarms us of the importance to persevere those wilderness areas. With the development of economy and technology, we enjoy the unprecedented prosperity. However, as we further introspect, we will easily find the price of this prosperity is too high.  Many species, once would become extinct at a very slow rate due to the natural selection, have faced the danger of dying out, because of拿掉 their habitats are heavily polluted or no longer exists. The ancient forests also encounter the same problem-----the deforestation is happening every minute and every second.  Urbanization, industrialization and many other human activities should be responsible for all this problems. When we feel proud about our prosperous economy, our flourishing culture, our fast-developing technology, we, human beings, should also take the blame for the natural imbalance. In this sense, to preserve the publicly owned wilderness areas really serves as a way to make up, or to say a precaution to save the nature, and in a not dissimilar way, to save ourselves.

Some people may argue that those remote areas, especially those extremely ones, are only accessible to only a few people, thus they do not need any man-made protection. Although this opinion has some merit with respect to now, I think this to be short-sighted when we take the future into account. We should not lose sight to the truth that the development of the society is striding at such a fast pace that even the remote areas now will become easily accessible in the near future. To think about the dissertation. This is the same with the pollution of wilderness areas. If we hold the far-sighted outlook, we will not be blinded by the superficial phenomenon.

Secondly,看不出这个secondly是针对前面那个观点说的 to preserve those publicly owned wilderness areas will bring invaluable benefits to human. Any wise researchers have already share the belief that those  animals and plants in  wilderness areas provide hints to decipher human genes, and many of them have great value in medical care. And take to the plants, especially the forests. They play a significant role in keeping the balance of our ecosystem. The reality that greenhouse effect is well-known to scientists, even to common people. 这里是不是再详细阐述一下温室效应和森林的关系？In a word, even if we want to weigh the money spent on preservation and the benefits gained from preservation, doubtless, the latter should be much larger.觉得这个句子有点毛病

As we mention above, As mentioned above是不是好些the importance and benefits of preserving the wilderness areas will become the major reason for the governmental support. Firstly, the publicly owned wilderness areas should receive financial support from the government. As public goods, the preservation of wilderness areas will not be effective in the mechanics of free market. Secondly, support from government is not limited to merely financial support, but also include policies and laws. In some cases, laws and policies are more powerful, especially in the long run. Under the protection of them, many animals can survive without the threat of over-haunting, and many plants should not have to face the danger which the unreasonable city-expansion brings. By financial and lawful protection, the wilderness areas can expect nature balance.

To sum up, to preserve publicly owned wilderness areas, no matter whether they are easily accessible or not, is well worthy the money and effort from the government.  We should not neglect our responsibility in protecting the nature, for it is our human beings that play a major role in the environmental problems.


我觉得有个可大可小的问题没有注意到，就是题目中强调的accessible。是不是应该针对这点再多做些文章，像第三段分析的就很出采，但别的段落似乎少些。

[ Last edited by htpeng on 2005-8-2 at 23:40 ]