Issue-10.
Nations should pass laws to preserve wilderness areas, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. （同125、148）
In order to maintain biological diversity and a balance between man and nature, we need to consider wildlife preservation. Wilderness areas need to be protected. However, if a nation is short on economical power and the wilderness area that is being preserved had some resources that could save the country from economic troubles, a more relaxed preservation policy should be considered.
Preservation policies are good ways to ensure generations are able to enjoy the natural beauty of a country. Without preservation, more and more wildlife would lose natural habitat and, over time, become extinct. For example, without a consideration for wildlife, people would certainly use their amassing wealth to move in to new areas, resulting in deforestation and, in turn, global warming. These trends need to be curbed by policy in order to ensure that creatures could enjoy their natural habitat and rear offspring.
However, a government has more to consider than the preservation of wildlife areas. A government must first preserve the people. Protection is costly in that it requires personnel support at many levels and sometimes bars natural resources. It situations of dire economic need, a government must consider more relaxed environmental protection policies. For example, to start with, reducing the budget for maintenance of such areas. This method could free funds to be redirected as needed. In more dramatic situations, perhaps the protected land had a natural resource that could help a country out of a financial disaster. This is yet another case where relaxed preservation policy should be required.
Preservation of wilderness areas allows for biological diversity and better natural environmental but a government should not focus too much attention on the matter. For example, if the petroleum in Alaska had been protected instead of used, it would have been difficult for America to develop. The purpose of policies, whether they are protecting the environment or reinforcing economical and technological strength, should best serve the people.
In summary, people have a moral responsibility to preserve wilderness areas for a brighter future and circumstance for our descendants but governments have the responsibility to protect the people. The government should set policies in place that do protect both people and land but, in cases of necessity, the immediate needs of the people need to be provided for.
- For example, without a consideration for wildlife, people would certainly use their amassing wealth to move in to new areas resulting in deforestation and, in turn, global warming. 这一句中的amassing一词用得很好，表现出一种财富聚集、积累的动感，也隐约感觉到人们追求财富的不顾一切之感。因此，更突出了本句的其他内容——追求经济发展带来的对野生动物的伤害和自然环境的破坏。
- Protection is costly in that it requires personnel support at many levels and sometimes bars natural resources. 本句中的in that表示原因，即因为、由于之意。这个词组比同义的because更加书面化一些，用在GRE写作中比较合适。
- For example, if the petroleum in Alaska had been protected instead of used, it would have been difficult for America to develop. 这句话使用了虚拟语气，if…had been….提出对过去假设的条件后，对应后面可能发生而实际上未发生的would have been…。
由于这道作文题的问题要求答题人发表对题目所谈问题的看法，那么除了全部赞同或全不反对，自然也有部分赞同部分反对的选择。本文作者对题目采取了一种辩证的看法，他/她没有否定题目的说法，因为作者认为保护wilderness areas是具有极大重要性的；他/她也没有肯定题目的说法，因为作者认为在某些情况下，政府应该利用wilderness areas 获取经济利益。作者的观点是将这二者结合起来，不管是保护还是经济开发，出发点都应立足于人的需求。作者构思本文也遵照上述顺序，采用总分总的结构，分段分别论述了以上观点。