Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Issue 10: Nations Should Pass Laws To Preserve Any Remaining Wilderness Areas - With A Free Essay Review
PROMPT: "Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain." 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.
I partially agree with the statement that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.
When the human race entered the era of agricultural revolution, they began exploiting the wilderness at a fast rate, destroying wetlands in order to raise livestock or devastating rainforests for the sake of planting crops. Worse still, after the industrial revolution, the exploitation of remaining wilderness reached an unprecedented speed. Increasingly, wild areas are being disrupted by humans’ activities for economic gain, which has caused a large number of valuable animals and plants to perish from the earth. Also, the number of endangered animals is still decreasing at present. In order to protect these flora and fauna from extinction, nations ought to pass laws to preserve some wilderness areas so as to provide wildlife with an undisrupted environment.
However, when it comes to conserving any wilderness areas, it seems a little bit unrealistic and unnecessary. No nation can guarantee not to make use of any wild areas left over because every nation must develop intact areas for some purposes such as mining fossil fuels, reclaiming swampland for agriculture to meet increasing population’s need or even doing some experiments including missile tests. If all remaining wilderness areas within one country cannot be utilized anymore, this country is bound to be stagnant and can hardly thrive henceforth. Apart from some unreality of the first half of the statement, it may also sound needless. In some wilderness areas, there is no need to maintain them intact and slightly changing their natural state is likely to lead to favorable consequences instead of undesirable ones. For instance, in the northwest of China, there are large areas of desert in which wind-driven generators are installed, creating tremendous power for surrounding cities. Instead of using traditional methods to generate electricity, this way is more environmentally friendly in spite of transforming the surface of the desert to some extent. Thus, although nations should enact laws to preserve some wild areas, that any wild areas are under the protection of law seems unrealistic and unnecessary.
In addition, of great environmental as well as ecological value, preserving remaining wilderness areas is indeed of importance, however, it does not contradict economic interests, and a win-win situation is expected to be achieved if nations handle it appropriately. Zhangjiajie National Forest Park is an excellent example of this point. Even though changing these wild areas a little to build the park, the floral and fauna are protected perfectly. While the park is obtaining large profit through eco-tourism, tourists also gain eco-consciousness during their trip. Moreover, the government can make use of this revenue from the park to do more eco-development.
In conclusion, nations do not need to pass laws to preserve all remaining wilderness areas. On one hand, it is a little bit unrealistic. On the other hand, proper activities can make a win-win situation with respect to ecology and economics.
Let me suggest that you make it as obvious as possible that you are responding directly to the instructions. In this case, the instructions tell you to "consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position." You are implicitly doing that when you claim, in your first paragraph, that "in order to protect ... flora and fauna from extinction, nations ought to pass laws to preserve some wilderness areas so as to provide wildlife with an undisrupted environment." You can make the point explicitly by saying something like "If the policy were implemented, the consequences would be good for wild flora and fauna because etc." Once you are explicitly addressing that question, you will likely find other things coming to your mind: It's good for people who want to experience nature in the wild; it's good for scientists who want to study natural habitats.
The next time you address the issue of possible consequences is in the middle of your long, third-to-last paragraph. You say "If all remaining wilderness areas within a country cannot be used, the country is bound to be stagnant." You can make this a more obvious part of your essay by making it the topic of a paragraph, and developing and supporting the claim, instead of limiting your response to one sentence buried in the middle of a paragraph that is ostensibly about a different topic.
In both cases, you need to conclude by responding to the last part of the prompt: "explain how these consequences shape your position." So your argument should look like this:
1. If the policy were implemented, there would be these positive consequences ...
2. If the policy were implemented, there would also be these negative consequences ...
3. It a weaker version of the policy were implemented, we could avoid most of the negative consequences while keeping some of the positive consequences.
4. For that reason I disagree that nations should protect every remaining wilderness area, but agree that many such areas should be protected or used in a way that is environmentally friendly.
Note that the last point is a more accurate version of your position than your initial statement of that position (I partially agree with the statement).