Issue83 V6站队 7.31 同主题写作

mkb57288UID: 2105771

限时43分钟，改了一下个别单词，感觉写得有点儿乱，明显不如今天早些时候的Issue 99
------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------
I agree with the speaker's claim insofar as the protection of endangered species and fragile ecology in the publicly owned wildness. The argument, however, unnecessarily claim that the areas should be in their natural state, especially when the interest of human civilization is at stake.

I concede that the author is on the correct philosophic side. It is the responsibility for the government to preserve the publicly owned wildness for the purpose of ecology. Such areas, due to of absence of human intervenes, are often habitats for many endangered species, and the rampant exploiture of their fragile environment will result in the extinction of dying species, which will be an irredeemable loss for human. Furthermore, the vast majority of wildness plays an important role in the balance of ecology, if undermined by human behaviors, will threaten the survival of ourselves. For example, deforestation will breed severe desertification, and threaten the safety of cities or railway nearby. Without the preservation from government, such tragedies are likely to occur.

However, the speaker simply equates preservation with keeping the areas in their natural state. In fact some ecology of the wildness is fragile in nature and it would be unwise for the government to just stay it as original, which in fact also risks our survival. In fact, to improve the natural environment to meet the need of our survival and prosperity is the nature of human. It is also the responsibility of government to modify and improve the harsh ecology there. Consider the example of Gobi in Asia, which lacks vegetation in its natural state. Since there is possibility for human being to improve its natural state--by forestation and so forth, the governments also take some effective action to make the environment better than before. With the chance to improve the environment, the mere preservation its nature state can be taken as the malfunction of government or passive action in preservation at best.

In the concern with the sustainable development of civilization, lies another reason that the government should not preserve the wildness as its natural state passively. Such areas, are usually rich in myriad resources--such as petroleum, coal or other mineral, which is especially valuable under the pressure of the increasingly destitution of resources. We can never risk the prosperity of human civilization to ensure the intactness of such wildness. On the other hand, exploiture does not necessarily amounts to environmental disasters. By take protective actions, we can prevent the damage of ecology and extinction of species and then strike the balance between the preservation of environment and human development.

To sum up, I concede that government should take certain to preserve the wildness to keep them from the damage of ecology and extinction of endangered species. However we should also be active in modifying the world around us and strike the balance between the intactness of environment and the interest of human civilization as a whole.

zehuaUID: 199246

我来

zehuaUID: 199246

I agree with the speaker's claim insofar as the protection of endangered species and fragile ecology in the publicly owned wildness. The argument, however, unnecessarily claim that the areas should be in their natural state, especially when the interest of human civilization is at stake.（牛啊！典型的老外280）

I concede that the author is on the correct philosophic side（^_^，这里也是老外280）. It is the responsibility for the government to preserve the publicly owned wildness for the purpose of ecology. Such areas, due to of（去of）  absence of human intervenes, are often habitats for many endangered species, and the rampant exploiture of their fragile environment will result in the extinction of dying species, which will be an irredeemable loss for human. Furthermore, the vast majority of wildness plays an important role in the balance of ecology, if undermined by human behaviors, will threaten the survival of ourselves. For example, deforestation will breed severe desertification, and threaten the safety of cities or railway nearby. Without the preservation from government, such tragedies are likely to occur.

However, the speaker simply equates preservation with keeping the areas in their natural state. In fact some ecology of the wildness is fragile in nature and it would be unwise for the government to just stay it as original, which in fact also risks our survival. In fact, to improve the natural environment to meet the need of our survival and prosperity is the nature of human.
（这句这样是不是好点： human nature is to improve the natural environment to meet the need of our survival and prosperity）

It is also the responsibility of government to modify and improve the harsh ecology there. Consider the example of Gobi in Asia, which lacks vegetation in its natural state. Since there is possibility for human being to improve its natural state--by forestation and so forth, the governments also take some effective action to make the environment better than before. With the chance to improve the environment, the mere preservation its nature state can be taken as the malfunction of government or passive action in preservation at best.

In the concern with the sustainable development of civilization, lies another reason that the government should not preserve the wildness as its natural state passively. Such areas, are usually rich in myriad resources--such as petroleum, coal or other mineral, which is especially valuable under the pressure of the increasingly destitution of resources. We can never risk the prosperity of human civilization to ensure the intactness of such wildness. On the other hand, exploiture does not necessarily amounts to environmental disasters. By take（TAKING)  protective actions, we can prevent the damage of ecology and extinction of species and then strike the balance between the preservation of environment and human development.

To sum up, I concede that government should take certain to preserve the wildness to keep them from the damage of ecology and extinction of endangered species. However we should also be active in modifying the world around us and strike the balance between the intactness of environment and the interest of human civilization as a whole.

总的说来很好。给你打6分。为什么说乱呢？:confused:

mrealUID: 201732

In the concern with the sustainable development of civilization, 似乎少主语了~lies another reason that the government should not preserve the wildness as its na ...

的确倒装……笨！