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 In Their Natural State, Even If These Areas Could Be Developed For Economic Gain. - 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."
Nature has always been very kind and generous to mankind. From the ancient times humans have been immensely dependent on the blessings of nature, whether it be the provisions of food for survival, the pure water for satiating his thrust, or the building of his houses for shelter. But, with the passage of time man has proven to be an ingrate and selfish. For his personal gain and upliftment he has extensively harmed nature. In my opinion, it is high time for us to realise the importance of conserving the wilderness and government should play an eminent role in doing so.
The flora and fauna in these areas are still proving to be a benediction to humans. We have been taught from childhood what a major part trees play in rainfall and holding the soil together. Apart from this, the wood, leaves, and twigs are still used by many to cook food, the herbs are used in many medicines, the birds, insects, butterflies all living in these areas are major agents for pollination. There are many aspects in which one can gain the advantages even economically without harming these areas.
The wilderness areas, which have a potential to be used for economic gain, are havens for many birds and animals. After the massive deforestation that has taken place to convert the green chunks of lands into concrete cities we should have a heart to leave the remaining for the well being and existence of the animals around us. But, it is sad to say that our materialistic nature has completely overpowered any traces of conscience in us. There are many who would never realize the danger we might pose to ourselves in the process of gaining money. Hence, here it becomes very important for the nation to pass strict laws that make provisions to preserve these areas. There are people who will never stop unless they understand that they will be liable to punishments for trespassing.
One can argue that the enforcement such laws may lead to the unemployment of many. There are many people who earn their daily meals by working at the sites of construction in such areas. But,the major point to be thought of is that actually these workers are the ones who only get paid with meagre amounts. These people may find alternative employments in other areas of construction. It would be the big shots of the construction companies who will suffer a loss in their economic gains. But, this is just a drop in the mighty ocean of wealth that these builders have amassed with similar constructions everywhere.
These laws will definitely hinder the financial gains and there can be a lot of hue and cry from the people whose interests coincide with the encroachment upon these areas but looking at the long term gains the nation should make sure that all their wilderness is preserved and taken well care of.
Note that the instructions ask you to discuss a particular policy (articulated in the first sentence in the prompt) but your essay does not really refer to that policy explicitly. You never say, for instance, "I agree with the policy" and you don't anywhere use the word "policy" in reference to the position you are advancing. You write, in other words, as though the prompt were to be taken as a kind of loose indication of a topic to write about, in which case it would make perfect sense to write, in the form of a thesis statement, "it is high time for us to realise the importance of conserving the wilderness and government should play an eminent role in doing so" instead of writing a thesis statement directly responsive to the prompt: "I agree that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state because ... ." I think that approach (I mean, your indirect approach) is the wrong approach insofar as there are risks associated with it (i.e., losing points for not responding directly to the prompt!) that you can avoid with a direct response.
You offer as an implicit reason for preserving wilderness areas, the claim that such areas are a benefit to us. You can make that reason explicit by saying something like "We should preserve wilderness areas because they are a benefit to us." (Such "because" clauses are very useful in essays of this type because they force the writer to be explicit and therefore certain of his or her reason, and they reduce the scope for confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the reader). I think, in any case, your discussion of the benefit to humans of such areas is limited in scope. You don't discuss the possible importance of wilderness areas for human recreation or knowledge or health or spirit, if there is such a thing, for example. Another (again implicit) reason you offer in favor of preservation is the danger to humans of developing wilderness areas. But you do not discuss the possible dangers you have in mind here.
Finally, you've been asked to consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy articulated in the prompt. Your discussion of those consequences, however, is not very thorough. Insofar as you claim that many animals depend on wilderness areas, for instance, your essay implicitly argues that implementing the policy will save animals. Make that argument explicit. Explain whether you mean it will save animals from difficulty or from extinction. Perhaps consider explaining, further, why you think we have an obligation to prevent harm to animals. (Note that your discussion of the danger of development of wilderness areas should probably be included in the section of your essay devoted to the consideration of the consequences of implementing the policy; e.g., something like "Another consequence of implementing the policy is that it might allow us to avoid etc.").