GRE 作文题目
来源于朗播用户:lovehp
Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. [Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.]
题目分析
翻译
国家应该出台法律保持现存所有荒地的原始状态,尽管这些地区可以为了经济利益而被开发。[说明:写一篇文章,讨论你对于这个政策的观点,并解释你选择这个观点的理由。在展开和支持你的观点时,你需要考虑这个政策生效以后可能带来的结果,并解释这些结果如何支持了你的观点]
指导
本题改编自老GRE的ISSUE83"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"。题目讨论对荒地原始状态保持的问题,题目认为这种措施是“应该执行”的。在分析的过程中,可以从国家责任本身要考虑的内容、荒地原始状态的保持满足了哪些需求、荒地对人们生活的正负面和直接间接影响等方面展开思考。
1. 请结合具体事例分析:哪些荒地因为政府没有进行有效保护,给人们带来了负面影响;有哪些原始荒地因为政府的开发而带来了更多的价值?
回答:
城市周边地区,因为政府没有很好的保护,结果变成了垃圾场,给附近的居民带来很大影响,而且,垃圾中含有有害物质,这些物质进入到土地中,污染了地下水,作物,从而对人类有害;开发带来个多价值的,比如日本的神户人工岛。。。迪拜的棕榈岛,世界岛。。
2. 对国家而言,处于原始状态的公有荒地存在哪些直接价值和潜在价值?可尝试从经济、科技、政治、军事、教育、文化等角度思考。
回答:
保护了环境,从而保护了生物,保护了生物多样性,最终对人类还是有利的。比如,美国黄石国家公园因为很好的保护了原始状态,风景优美,每年吸引大量游人去欣赏,带来了经济利益。又比如,中国的洞庭湖,当长江发洪水是,它可以充当一个缓冲,防止下游被洪水淹没
3. 除了保持荒地原始状态之外,国家还可以利用荒地进行哪些活动?这些活动的直接价值和潜在利益有哪些?可尝试从经济、科技、政治、军事、教育、文化等角度思考。
回答:
比如生态旅游,不仅保护了环境,还有经济收益。此外也对学术界有好处,人们可以发现植物的药用价值,(经济价值),此外人类好多的发明都来源于动物,比如直升机--蜻蜓。。。。
4. 对于的荒地,应该如何平衡开发与保持原状态的利弊?请结合以上分析做判断。
回答:
首先还是尽量要保护原始生态环境的,因为生态环境一旦破坏,想恢复,几乎不可能,而经济收入,可以来源于多方面,所以,在保护原始生态环境的基础上开发是OK的,比如,生态旅游,再或者,适当在荒地中挖掘一些有药用价值的植物去买;在荒地中发现具有基因特别优秀的植物,和现有的植物杂交,取得收益
5. 国家在保持公有荒地原始状态过程中的收益是否大于付出?
回答:
这个问题从不同的角度看,会有不同的答案。在我看来,国家应该保持共有荒地,因为第一,也学潜在的价值我们开没发现。第二,保护物种多样性是我们应该做的,与收益无关
其他用户的回答
作文
Does it is worth to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in nation natural state and ignore these areas' potential to promte economic? In the author's opinion, remaining wilderness areas is equal to original environment, which is invaluable asset to human, so government should preserve these areas by passing laws, despites these areas could be developed for economic gains. Certainly, this is a quite resonable opinion, because wilderness areas contain many valuable plants and animal that could make us happy. However, I'm not agree with the author entirely, since wilderness areas could divided to a different kind of wilderness areas, such as a wilderness areas that locates around cities, a wilderness areas that easy to be destroyed. So, government should take different policies to different wilderness areas.
Government should spare no effort to preserve wilderness areas. If only our technology was sophiscated enough to find out plants' value which gorwed in wilderness areas, then we wouldn't recognize these wilderness areas are useless. As a consequence, that we haven't figured out these areas included value isn't equal to they are valueless. For instance, some kind of animal that lived in wilderness areas play a considerable role in biology chains, if we destoryed wilderness areas, then these animal also disappeared and the whole biology chain would be ruined. In addition, some kind of plants could cure diseases that nowadays we have no idea how to treat it. We will regret when these plants and animal disappeared, if government didn't preserve these wilderness areas sufficiently, and the loss couldn't be represented by money.
However, I don't deny that some kind of wilderness areas should be developed for economic gains. Some kind of wilderness areas circumvent cities, which have a possibility to turn into a place that are full of litter, and this phenomenon do harm to human's health who lived by these wilderness areas. What's more, this action also waste its location resource, for if these wilderness areas were developed to residents or CBD, this action not only mitigated the preasure produced by large population, but also promote economic gains, also improve standard of living of human. As a consequence, if government leave these wilderness areas alone, the disadvantages are more than advantages.
On the contrast, these wilderness areas are located in a place that only have a little amount of population or its envirnment are easy to be destroyed, if true,government shoud preserve these areas by passing laws. Because, human can have an eye feast of splendid vision and enjoy fresh air. For example, Yellowstone National Park attracted a large amount of traveler every year by its impreccable preservation which result in Yallowstone National Park has a fabulous beauty. Form this action, Yellowstone National Park gained both beautiful vision and money. Besides, Tibet's environment is easy to be destroyed, what's the worset, if the environment was destroyed, it is impossible to cure it. Under these circumstances, government should spare no effort to preserve this kind of treasure.
Even though the author's opinion is provisional, but the author didn't thoroughtly consider of this issue. As far as I can see, government should develop wilderness areas embracing cities, and preserve those wilderness areas which are far away city or the environment of areas are easy to be destroyed. Otherwise, human will loss a treasure of nature.