Urgent ! I 'm going to take ielts exam next week, please help me~~~any advise and comments(include grammers,vocabulary...) are highly appreciated!! thanks a lot ~~~~~
TOPIC:Nowadays both scientists and tourists can go to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
When human lose interest on common place of interest, they embark on exploring wildly remote nature. To my way of thinking, the boons brought by this tend prevail over the banes.
Obviously, the essence of science is to probe unveiled substances; for scientist, going to isolated natural environment (such as tropical rainforest or polar area) is constructive to observe wild species and get a closer look on eco-system. Another significant advantage is carrying on scientific research, it is commonly known that in Antarctic, for example, there are several research stations which aim at monitoring the size of the hole in ozone layer and measuring changes in the ice-cap. Therefore exploring primary nature is enormously beneficial in science aspects
In addition, in tourist's position, such adventure pushes back their visions. For one thing, they acquired fist-hand experience-from touching unknown plants when traveling to forest to taking photos of polar bears. For another, experiencing such pristine nature is the aspiration to artists- if the tourists are painters and musicians.
However, setting foot in pristine nature is attended by alarming problem. One big danger should be mentioned is the trash which left behind by tourists and the pollutant which is generated from science research. More seriously, biological balance is disturbed by human activities. QingHai Lake, located in remote west part of china, is the 'victim' of increasing tourists who are keen on venturing.
On the whole, there are massive interests fore both science and individual, what we are encouraged to do is to reduce the pollution and to damage the wild nature as little as possible.
TOPIC:Nowadays both scientists and tourists can go to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?
When human lose interest on common place of interest, they embark on exploring wildly remote nature. To my way of thinking, the boons brought by this tend prevail over the banes.
Obviously, the essence of science is to probe unveiled substances; for scientist, going to isolated natural environment (such as tropical rainforest or polar area) is constructive to observe wild species and get a closer look on eco-system. Another significant advantage is carrying on scientific research, it is commonly known that in Antarctic, for example, there are several research stations which aim at monitoring the size of the hole in ozone layer and measuring changes in the ice-cap. Therefore exploring primary nature is enormously beneficial in science aspects
In addition, in tourist's position, such adventure pushes back their visions. For one thing, they acquired fist-hand experience-from touching unknown plants when traveling to forest to taking photos of polar bears. For another, experiencing such pristine nature is the aspiration to artists- if the tourists are painters and musicians.
However, setting foot in pristine nature is attended by alarming problem. One big danger should be mentioned is the trash which left behind by tourists and the pollutant which is generated from science research. More seriously, biological balance is disturbed by human activities. QingHai Lake, located in remote west part of china, is the 'victim' of increasing tourists who are keen on venturing.
On the whole, there are massive interests fore both science and individual, what we are encouraged to do is to reduce the pollution and to damage the wild nature as little as possible.
Do You Need