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 (GRE) - With A Free Essay Review
"Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain."
As environmental problems grow more and more severe today, controversies about wilderness preservation and economic development have come into our eyes. Indeed, during the past centuries, we have made the nature suffer a lot during our developing, and it is high time we should protect remaining wilderness areas. The statement claiming that nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas regardless of their economic potential seems to be reasonable at the first look, but a problem emerges when considered more deeply.
As we all know, it is not a fact that every nation has the problem that wilderness areas are in urgent need of protecting. Some African nations, for instance, are in desperate destitution today with a large amount of wilderness areas. So I think their most urgent problem is not how to preserve wild areas, but to develop the economy, so their people can escape from hunger and poverty. In my opinion, people cannot let themselves starve to death just to protect wilderness areas that could be used to exchange for foods. Surviving should always be in the first place in any case. If people in these nations pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state and give up their economic gain, then it is very likely that they cannot get a fortune out of nowhere, and so they cannot further develop their countries because they have neither resources nor money. So if a nation that is rich in natural resources is in such a crisis, the protection of nature should then give in to the developing of economy.
However, for those countries without crisis, I think it is urgent for them to pass laws to preserve their remaining wilderness areas, even not to preserve every one of them. Some people may think that wilderness areas are something mother nature gives us to make a profit from, and they indeed are, but the profit we gain from them cannot be measured by how much money we can make from exploiting it. If you see the Rocky Mountains just as mountains, then you are losing much the meaning of it. If we see it in the way which God sees it, we could see that it is a watershed, a barometer of climate, a home for wild creatures, a place of beauty and peace, a symbol of the U.S., and even, a place that compose part of the spirits of our fellow Americans. The value of wilderness areas is always more than the financial gain, and if we do not start to protect them and continue to use them for our economic gain, we will lose it sooner or later. Then some other day, we may be sitting alone in our forests of high rises, and missing our old friends.
I know it is often hard to balance economic gain and the preserving wilderness areas, but the principle here is “no loss, no gain”. We might be compelled to give up some wilderness areas when we are in urgent need of necessities, but we cannot always sell them all the time for our economic gain. As long as we have already walked out of the hard period, we must develop new ways to make profit to support our lives, and what is the most important now is, to leave our remaining wilderness areas for good.
The arguments advanced here are reasonable enough, but not articulated with sufficient specificity. The last sentence, and in particular the last clause ("but etc.") of the first paragraph, for instance, is vague and hackneyed. Indeed the whole first paragraph contains little of value in terms of completing the assigned task, and generally when you're writing under time constraints, you should consider whether constructing a generic introduction is a good use of time.
The second paragraph is reasonably clear, so I'll focus here on the third. Some readers will consider your invocation of how God sees things a bit awkward and perhaps inappropriate for this type of analytical essay (since one would need to assume that God exists and that his way of seeing things is knowable; what if God sees the Rocky Mountains as a symbol of a divided country or just as a good location for skiing resorts? You should probably also avoid using "you" in the manner you do, since doing that can introduce an unintended didactic tone (I'm allowed to do it since the didactic tone is intentional!), and you should also not assume that your reader is a fellow American. The larger problem with the third paragraph is again the vagueness of that "value" you attribute to wilderness areas. There is nothing particularly vague, of course, about your references to beauty and peace, or "home for wild creatures," but everything else is rather vague, including the paragraph’s conclusion, which has the added problem of articulating a fairly trivial argument: if we don't protect them, we will lose them, and that would be bad.