issue83没有限时，有拍必回

hilucyUID：209731

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."

题目翻译：
政府应该保护公共所有的野生地区，使得它们维持自然的状态，即使这些地方十分地偏远因而大多数人无法到达。
出现频率：
7月份出现7次。
1. Agree with it partly  and just for some more.环境污染问题，需要各国政府支持。基本同意
观点，但是对于偏远地区的保护的程度和方法搞根据各个国家的具体实力。
2. Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state,polution increasingly becomes every country's headache problem, the weak nature will influence the encnomic 。环境对社会的发展起到至关重要的作用，好的环境让人身体健康，生活愉悦，同时促进经济发展，恶劣的环境制约了社会发展。举例子，环境的危害。结论政府应该保护公共的未开发的区域，
3, when come to ，对于人烟稀少的地区，同样要加强保护。第一、人少不带表没有破坏，
第二，因为目前人少并不代表不久的将来也这么少，所以要返还于未然。其次很多环境的问题是由于全球气温的变化造成，而不是局部人为的影响，例如政府需要用全局的观点来对待这样的问题。举例说明，没有及时对边缘地区的影响。不及时进行保护的后果，举例说明，提前进行保护的例子，
4各个国家的经济实力不同，尤其是不发达国家，他们的实力有限，那么应该更加合理的分配资金和人力，例如把主要力量放在污染严重的区域，对于偏远地区仍然需要提前做好准备，因为这个时候进行保护的费用将会是最低，否则如果一旦破坏，代价更大。另外，可以采用遥感等更先进技术进行环境监测节约成本并且更加有效，成本无论那个国家，严格的法律政策约束很关键。
5，结论。政府要进行保护，不管是遭到破坏还是没有遭到破坏，人少的地方。同时要注意采用先进的技术和多与各国政府广泛接触。

Since the advent of the industrial Revolution in the 1700s, humans have devises many inventions that burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing all kinds of poisonous gases, as well as other activities such as clearing land for agriculture or urban settlements. More and more people are growing increasingly concerned that human activities may be modifying the natural process, with potentially dangerous consequences. I absolutely agree that 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 , incidentally, right now!
Wilderness areas is crucial important to the earth ecosystem, while healthy ecosystems are vital to life: They regulate many of the chemical and climatic systems that make available clean air and water and plentiful oxygen. Wilderness areas with forests, for example, regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the air , produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, and control rainfull. Government preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state could protect the environment from  being  destroyed , undoubtedly , government should do that.
When it comes to whether these areas which are often extremely remote should be preserved, i seriously deem that it also should be, since there is no evidence to suggest that those place will be less polluted or ruined just because there are a few people in those areas. for example, the chiru , as known as Tibetan antelope, is slaughtered a lot due to less government protection in China ,In contrast, Japanese government pays much more attention to the wilderness areas' protection. In addition, these extremely remote areas are accessible to only a few people now doesn't means it will always be. it would be too late and much more expensive to preserve those areas after pollution or ruin.
Obviously, preserving of wilderness areas will to a certain extent restrict the economic development especially the developing country, government should learn other governments' good experiences, and rationally allot the money and labour force, as well as using advanced technology such as remote sensing to save money , besides, rigorous law is prerequisite.
In conclusion, we don't have another earth, 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. Nonetheless, government should keep a balance in the preservation of remote wilderness areas and the near ones.

冰阳UID：201604

Since the advent of the industrial Revolution in the 1700s, humans have devises many inventions that burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing all kinds of poisonous gases, as well as other activities such as clearing land for agriculture or urban settlements. More and more people are growing increasingly concerned that human activities may be modifying the natural process, with potentially dangerous consequences. I absolutely agree that 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, incidentally, right now!（我觉得第一段的背景介绍太长了，精简一点比较好）
Wilderness areas is(are，hehe!粗心了吧，) crucial important（个人觉得应该是crucially，adv修饰adj） to the earth ecosystem, while healthy ecosystems are vital to life: They regulate many of the chemical and climatic systems that make available clean air and water and plentiful oxygen. Wilderness areas with forests, for example, regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the air , produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, and control rainful（rainfall）. Government preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state could protect the environment from being destroyed。undoubtedly, government should do that.（中心明确，例子支持论点）
When it comes to whether these areas, which are often extremely remote, should be preserved, I seriously deem that it also should be,（这句话我觉得和上面的定语从句在意思上重复） since there is no evidence to suggest that those place will be less polluted or ruined just because there are a few people in those areas. for example, the chiru , as known as Tibetan antelope, is slaughtered a lot due to less government protection in China ,In contrast, Japanese government pays much more attention to the wilderness areas' protection.（个人觉得日本的这个例子太空动了，没什么实质性的内容在里面，致使泛泛的谈了他们重视保护荒地，没有谈到具体措施） In addition, these extremely remote areas are accessible to only a few people now doesn't means it will always be. It would be too late and much more expensive to preserve those areas after pollution or ruin.
Obviously, preserving of wilderness areas will to a certain extent restrict the economic development especially the developing country, government should learn other governments' good experiences,（一句话中有两个government不太好，有点重复） and rationally allot the money and labor force, as well as using advanced technology such as remote sensing（顺便说的：remote sensing 是遥感的说法吧，武测的？） to save money , besides, rigorous law is prerequisite.
In conclusion, we don't have another earth, 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. Nonetheless, government should keep a balance in the preservation of remote wilderness areas and the near ones.


思路清晰，逻辑没问题 但语言方面的还不是很好
有一些粗心的小错误，细心点！

冰阳UID：201604

谢谢你的建议，以后大家多互相改改，一起杀G呀1

yuemingjushiUID：2108406

Since the advent of the industrial Revolution in the 1700s, humans have devises（devised） many inventions（发明了许多发明？） that burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil（石油用petroleum比较好）, and natural gas, releasing all kinds of poisonous gases, as well as other activities such as clearing land for agriculture or urban settlements. More and more people are growing increasingly concerned that human activities may be modifying the natural process, with potentially dangerous consequences. I absolutely agree that 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 , incidentally, right now!
Wilderness areas is（单复数） crucial（好像是个形容词，crucially） important to the earth ecosystem, while(while表示转折的意思，放在这里不太合适) healthy ecosystems are vital to life: They regulate many of the chemical and climatic systems that make available clean air and water and plentiful oxygen. Wilderness areas with forests, for example, regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the air , produce oxygen as a byproduct of photosynthesis, and control rainfull（下雨归森林管么？）. Government preserving publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state could protect the environment from being destroyed, undoubtedly, government should do that.
When it comes to whether these areas which are often extremely remote should be preserved, i seriously deem that it also should be, since there is no evidence to suggest that those place will be less polluted or ruined just because there are a few people in those areas. for example, the chiru , as known as Tibetan antelope, is slaughtered a lot due to less government protection in China ,In contrast, Japanese government pays much more attention to the wilderness areas' protection. In addition（个人感觉用additionally不会跟上句的in contrast产生重复）, these extremely remote areas are accessible to only a few people now doesn't means it will always be（感觉一个句子两个谓语动词）. it would be too late and much more expensive to preserve those areas after pollution or ruin.
Obviously（如果这段跟上面是转折关系的话，用这个词可能不太恰当，推荐admittedly）, preserving of wilderness areas will to a certain extent restrict the economic development especially the developing country, （这里应该用句号，不然两个句子直接相连了）government should learn other governments' good experiences, and rationally allot the money and labour（美国英语中劳动者用labor） force, as well as using advanced technology such as remote sensing to save money , besides, rigorous law is prerequisite.
In conclusion, we don't have another earth，（用句号或分号） 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. Nonetheless, government should keep a balance in the preservation of remote wilderness areas and the near ones

总的来说还是写得很好，至少比我强，所以逻辑错误没敢多挑，感觉此文论点也不错。有几个句子用的特别精彩，值得我好好学习。能有机会改你的文章我很荣幸。但是本人水平有限，将就着参考吧：）
有空去拍我的
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=