托福写作题目为：What one of the following is the most important action for the government to take for the protection of natural environment。下面大家一起来看看托福写作真题的分析及范文。
What is the most important action for the government to take for the protection of environmental problems? Fund researches on new energy sources such as solar and wind power? Protect forests and natural wildlife species? Pass and enforce laws to reduce the pollution.
三选一类题目会给出三个选项A, B, C让学生去选择一个。这种题的答题方法为开头段-正文段第一段B好-正文段第二段B的另一个优点-正文段第三段B比A好/A的缺点和B比C好/C的缺点-结尾段。
What one of the following is the most important action for the government to take for the protection of natural environment?
(1)fund research on new energy sources such as solar and wind power;
(2)preserve natural places such as forests and natural wildlife species.
(3)pass and enforce laws to reduce the pollution produced by companies and industries
Taking a panoromic view of human history, we can readily find that the natural environment plays an enormously important role in determing the future of each and every country. Given the great significance of clean environment, the general public as well as the governors begin to wonder which is the most essential action to protect the environment, among funding new energy research, preserving natural habitat or enacting strict laws. Towards such a long-running tug-of-war, I am inclined to argue that national governments should invest financial support in developing new energy sources.
Initially, spending more money in discovering new energy can radically solve the various environmental problems. As is common sense, the deteriorating environment is the result of the overexploitation of fossil fuels, including coal, oil and natural gas. To be specific, numerous chemical plants usually burn the coal to provide power for manufacturing all kinds of goods designed to satisfy the basic needs of the general public. As a result, a large amounts of industrial wastes are discharged to take a toll on the natural environment. Also, an increasing number of petrol-powered automobiles will definitely emit car exhause(e.g. fumes and toxic gas), which can increase the likelihood of the public suffering from respiratory diseases. All the above problems related to environment can be resolved by find new and clean energy like solar energy, wind power and tidal power. Undoubtedly, replacing the traditional energy with the new ones can dramatically decrease the pollution and contamination, thus leading to a better living environment. For example, once the cars uses the electricity instead of petrol, the air quality will improve to a large extent.
Secondly, there are conspicuous limitation of the other two options. As for preserving natural places, the effect of this practice is relatively restricted. To illustrate, the traditional energy sources are usually exploited and discovered in the natural places. Consequently, the preservation of natural places will hinder the access to various energy and thus impede the progress of the whole society. Also, the same logic applies to passing laws to reduce pollution. It is an indisputable fact that across the globe, many countries now are heaviely dependent on the industries and factories which produce pollutions. In other words, once the law of punishing these companies is enforced, these corporation may have to cut down their output and make less profits, even ending up going bankcrupt. Accordingly, the national economy and the living standard of the public will suffer too.
Factoring what has been discussed above, we can conclude that funding research of environmental friendly energy will be more preferable, because finding proper alternative energy is the key to solving the environmental problems comprehensively.
The statement above attempts to assert whether funding on environmental friendly resources, preserving wildlife species, or enforcing laws to be the most crucial way to protect the environment has long been centered in dispute. Too often people hold the idea inventing new energy resources and passing laws could be effective ways to eradicate environmental related issues. However, as far as I am concerned protecting plants and animals would be a much more direct and sufficient solution.
To the extent that species extinction is the result of anthropogenic events such as direct or indirect human activities and further threaten the delicate balance which all animal including human beings depend upon. Thus protecting the forests and natural wildlife species has the priority to be dealt with. For example, the extinction of the dodo, a flightless bird endemic to the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, was directly attributable to human activity. As the nature is an intricate matrix of interdependent relationships, in which each species depends on many others for its survival, the dying out of Dodo caused a certain native tree whose seeds dispersed by Dodo, extinct either. Nowadays, many species face the similar circumstance either and it greatly results in human being’s greedy. To make mechanic profit, the underground dealers trade the skin of the Siberian Tiger, and horn of the Tibetan Antelope and the African Elephant, making those animals hardly ensure the preservation. For protecting the balanced ecosystem, human beings should place a very high affirmative duty to protect wildlife species.
In addition, many species possess great values to human race, some of which are not realized by human yet, requiring people to protect them without any effort. Thermal insulation and conductive resistance enables latex, extracting from the rubber tree, to be the essential component of industrial products for daily uses, such as rubber gloves and rubber sheath. Not only plants play an important role in industrial field, but works for medical perspective as well, especially function as Chinese herbal medicine. For instance, marijuana provides relief from pain and Lianqiao helps with heat removing. If cutting down most of the rubber trees and herbal species, we will leave limited resources for our future generation. For the reason above, it is essential for human beings contribute more on wildlife species protection to handle environmental resources shortage problems.
Admittedly, allocate money on new energy and pass laws to reduce pollution have the merit, however, they are impractical. Take spending on natural energy as an example. On the one threshold, with the technology we have now, the energy sources are not stable and even costly. Wind and solar energy cannot be obtained on a calm and cloudy day. On the other one, they cost the country a lot. I do not deny that wind and solar energy, cleaner energy as they are, would be a wiser choice for developed counties who have money and resources to solve the carbine dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and toxic gases relevant problems and to a great extend release environmental pressure, such as global warming jeopardy. However, when it comes to developing countries, poverty, higher unemployment rate, and high inflation are all problems that developing countries need to worry about. The better solution is to encourage factories to produce more goods and services. To cut down the costs, it is inevitable to produce air and water pollutions. Passing laws and inventing impede the economic growth on a large scale.
In sum, considering the financial and practical analyzing, it is safe to conclude that preserve wildlife species is the most important action to protect the natural environment rather than creating new energy and enforcing laws.