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. - With A Free Essay Review
“Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.”
I agree with the speaker that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state. A contrary position might review a compromise between human development and preservation for the intactness of nature, yet which, if not well practiced, could result in an out-of-control situation. Nevertheless I do not mean we should cease all activities that are related to nature, otherwise we may entirely lose connections with it.
One reason that I fundamentally agree with the saying is that human activities have already considerably influenced the normal functioning of the whole ecosystem. For one thing, history informs us that from the original agriculture and stock farming to collecting wood and stones for constructions, civilization constantly goes with the exploits of natural resources. Moreover, the phenomenon was extremely intense ever since the industrial revolution, which not only swallowed enormous natural resources but also left nature with considerable scales of waste. For another, since human activities are well-armed with technology, it is sometimes inevitable that their influence would penetrate into places that are even indirectly related. Hence those remaining wilderness areas can be vulnerable if no compelling laws are to be addressed for conservation.
Another reason I approve of the saying is that a non-obligatory measure, such as a compromise or an assurance to use the remaining wilderness areas moderately, might not be practiced rationally. In other words, this kind of measure lacks rigorous limits for itself, making it possible to pose potential damage to nature, especially under the incentive of profits. For example, a stunning scenery in China called JiuZhaiGou has long been set as a national key protect area as well as famous spot popular at home and abroad. Although the government urges society to protect its natural beauty, this wilderness area can never be free from inevitable disturbance by tourism bringing about vehicle emissions, litter, noises, and constructions that are for people’s accommodation. As a result, JiuZhaiGou’s scale is shrinking both on the level of quantity and of eco-structure year by year. Its originally intact state can never be found any more.
Having recognized that it is necessary to legislate in favor of protecting remaining wilderness areas intact, however, it is receivable to allow some nature relating activities to the degree that they are not threatening the ecosystem there. For example, photographers could records the beautiful sunset in African savannah with groups of zebra passing by; explorers may also walk through jungle and if lucky enough, even develop friendship with chimpanzees.
In sum, I agree with the speaker that nations should legislate to preserve any areas remaining wilderness, not only because human have already pose much negative influence on nature for a period of time, but also to prevent a potential overuse of natural resources.
The first paragraph is a bit weak and probably not needed in any case. The final sentence of that paragraph doesn't seem particularly relevant to me (the policy neither says nor implies anything about ceasing activities that are related to nature) and what you earlier mean by "result in an out-of-control situation" is just unclear.
The argument of the second paragraph tends to be vague and elliptical. You claim that one reason for agreeing with the policy is that "human activities have already considerably influenced the normal functioning of the whole ecosystem." You don't clarify what kind of influence you are thinking of here (and it doesn't go without saying) but more problematically you don't explain why the existence of such influence in the past means that we should now preserve wilderness areas in their natural state, except to say that the use of natural resources "left nature with considerable scales of waste." That expression is too imprecise. Implicitly you are arguing, I take it, that human activities have significantly harmed nature and that that is a bad thing to do because of one or more unspecified reasons. You need to make that argument as explicit and specific as you can. The second reason advanced in your second paragraph is more vague still; both the expression "activities are well-armed with technology" and "places that are even indirectly related" are not concrete enough. Perhaps the best way to specify what you are talking about here would be to give an example.
The next paragraph, however, relies too heavily on one example. You seem to be claiming here that simply asking people to "use the remaining wilderness areas moderately" will not work; enforceable laws are needed. Instead of explaining why that is true, you offer one example of what can happen when enforceable laws are not present. I would suggest that you should support an argumentative claim with one or more specific reasons (not with an example) and then illustrate your point with an example.
Finally, assuming that I am correct in thinking you were responding to the prompt and the instructions that I've appended at the top of your essay, it should be clear that the essay does not "address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position." When the instructions say "be sure" to do something, then you really must do that. I see that you make a gesture in this direction in your first paragraph, but that is not enough.