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.
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.”
As every nation develops day by day, the wilderness areas in different parts of the nation are used up for constructing new industries, apartments, or shopping complexes. It is true that preseving at least the remaining wilderness areas in their natural state would make at least those places free from air pollution and water pollution, and good places for animals to roam around naturally without any restriction. However, with the growing population and people from other nations moving into developed nations, it is not possible to preserve all the remaining wilderness areas in a nation.
Preserving wilderness areas is important because otherwise a nation would use up all of them and this would affect people in the nation as the ecological balance cannot be maintained. However, a nation cannot choose to preserve all the remaining wastelands over its economic gain. Instead of passing laws to preserve all the remaining wilderness areas, a nation should first determine its growing population and future need for lands and then chose some wilderness areas from the remaining ones and pass laws to preserve them. If no laws were passed to preserve the wilderness areas in the nation, that would result in using up of all such areas and polluting them. The nation would finally turn into a very bad place to live in with pollution everywhere. On the other hand, preserving all wilderness areas would not be feasible in a developing country as any such country should only have increasing growth and gain and wilderness areas should not hinder that.
You seem to be a paragraph or two short of a complete response to the essay. Your discussion of the consequences of not preserving some wilderness areas is reasonable enough but underdeveloped. For instance, you explain that wilderness areas would provide an area free of pollution and a place where animals could roam free without restrictions; you don’t explain why you think that’s important to do, and you don’t explain the value to humans of doing so. The more important thing missing from your essay, however, is a discussion of consequences of implementing the policy as stated. You assert that a nation cannot do that but you don’t give an idea of what negative impact you think preserving all wilderness areas would have. To begin to do that, you might think about how it might impact development of natural resources, agricultural development, or development of infrastructure.