Nations should pass laws in order to preserve nature; GRE/ Analyze an issue

Prompt:
"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.

Response:
It is understood that eradication of wilderness, for example: deforestation or
hunting of animals can sometimes be the inevitable by product of developmet of
a nation. However, given the recent situation of the climate, and nature in general,
I agree with the statement Nations should pass laws in order to preserve any remaining
wilderness in their natural state.

A reader may ask, Why? There are several answers. First and foremost, the
existence of rare and nearly extinct species. Whenever trees are cut down in
order to provide lumber or fuel, or when people hunt too much for food or sport
countless animal and mammal species can be killed or driven away. Because there
is no ecosystem to derive its food from, or there are no living spaces for such
species. There have been several instances where man-made factors have led to
extensive outward migration or extinction of species. For example, when Poachers
well allowed to hunt freely in the savannah which led to the severe depletion of
tiger population in Africa.

The second reason is that by not protecting wilderness, companies and other similar
entities may be tempted clear out an entire forest. Now, people may argue that
the space is needed to build industries and homes for exapnding population. The
Rebuttal to this arguement is that The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages
in this case. If trees were cleared out, the roots of the trees which are left over
would no longer hold the soil together. Near riverlands, soil may be washed away
by the river and be contaminated, or the deposition of soil at the riverbanks
may cause floods, as is the case in India. On hillsides and mountains, the
lack of trees may cause landslidesand avalanches. On the other hand,
building infrasturcture upon cleared out lands may lead to more man made
pollution. Which would not only harm wildlife but also us humans as well.

And my third point is: Wilderness areas can provide a huge source of tourism revenue.
Certain countries, especially countries in asia, rely on the revenue generated
by wildlife tourism to run economies. Now, clearing out such area could possibly
reduce such revenue on a considerable scale. Now, it can be argued that the
development that follows may cover and exceed tourism revenues. The answer to this is,
There is no guarantee that the development would guarantee the cover-up of such
lossess, and thus there would be no such problems. The ability of the development
may be affected by various factors.

Therefore, and considering both sides of the arguement, I believe that state laws
should enact laws that protect the wilderness. As I have shown with the aforementioned
arguements, nations would, quite certainly, benefit from the protection of the
wilderness.

I htink it looks good

Thanks for correcting the grammar. I'd also like to know if the essay suffers from any unimportant or out-of-topic content.

... Ok, then tell the reason.... in my view, your reason is not the existence of rare and nearly extinct species. It is the imbalance of eco system that can be caused by these activities.


.... again, this does not sound a strong argument. The problem here is that your reasons are not expressed direct. They are there in your writing, but hidden. In this para, I believe the reason is -


.... in other words, the harm they can do to the nature and the environment.
Just give some thought to what I have mentioned!

... actually, this is better termed as "echo tourism" which is based on supporting conservation efforts of tourism. This is actually a win win situation for economies and environment.


Well... I don't find they go out of topic, but you certainly have much more potential to align them better with your argument.
For example,


Here you need to connect all these ideas with your argument better. They seem to be scattered a bit sporadically; Your point here is that nations can generate income by engaging in echo tourism and therefore they need to make an effort to protect the nature. So, these laws are helpful for them.