Preservation of land for natural existence or human intervention

Should land be developed or left in natural condition?

Scientists have enlightened us that the earth as vast as it is, contains 70 percent water and barely 30 percent land, and with revolution rates skyrocketing in recent years, land usage is a factor that is treated to so much wisdom and rigorous decision taking measures, in some countries they employ the services of experts and knowledgeable expertise to carry out decisions on land usage in their country. The big question is, is there more need for land to be left in its natural condition or is there more need for land to be developed for housing and industry? After so much consideration I personally believe that there is more need for land to be developed for housing and industry, below are my note-worthy reasons for my choice. (salient points that support my line of thought)

Basically, we live in a world where everyone is forward thinking, looking for ways to get richer, improve the standard of living and so much more, all these have brought about immense revolution both economically and educationally. Imagine a world without crude oil, think of its benefits and picture it never existed, all one can picture is disaster, crude oil was discovered at a costly sacrifice of tearing open the layers of the earth, and the unending damage of the ozone layer by the harmful emissions burning of crude oil products produce. We can't just relax and be satisfied with the way things are, we have to keep moving forward in making the world a better place at the expense of any amount of natural land man can lay his hand upon, because if these expenses aren't made, the world won't be balanced.

Also, leaving lands for natural use is of no profit to any country, it doesn't benefit the life of anyone because the natural land cannot generate income for anyone, they should be converted into industries which would create jobs and generate revenue for the general public. An industry such as Coca-Cola which was built on a wild life game reserve is a genuine example of how industrialization is a far more useful option for land usage than preservation, the Coca-Cola company provided over 300,000 jobs which is like the population of a whole city, the sacrifice made by giving up the game reserve cannot be measured with the good will, the company has brought to the world at large.

Furthermore, a wise man once said we don't value what we have until we lose it, which is entirely true. in the past when natural lands and animals were taken for granted, they were wasted and used as desired without any precautions and regulatory orders to guide land usage and global destruction, and just in the twinkle of an eye, species became endangered, ozone layer depletion was born, global warming became a headline, it was then we realized how important natural lands were. Unarguably natural lands are very important and their scarcity have made them a treasure to all and are protected by federal laws. If these natural lands were never destroyed by revolutionization, they would have been abused beyond imagination because mankind would have gotten too fond of them. And before anyone realizes mankind would have lost both ways, natural land and no revenue to compensate the loss.

In conclusion, preservation of land for natural existence isn't a bad idea at all but the need for land to be used to revolutionize the world is a better idea because it would generate vast amounts of income, serve as a major pillar of development and prevent abuse to the existing natural land, considering their number.

Williams, the first thing that I notice about this essay is that you did not remember to post the complete prompt requirements with it. Without the original prompt to refer to, I am unable to accurately assess the content of your essay for relevance and compliance. Please remember to do that with your next essay. As I can only give you one review per essay, don't bother posting the prompt after my general observation comment. It will be useless. Just post the second essay with the complete prompt instead.

In this essay, what I can tell you is that you will lose points in the lexical resource section for your improper use of the word "revolution" A revolution is an ongoing war. Specifically, a revolution means either "a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system." or "an instance of revolving.", neither of which is applicable to what you are saying in the essay. The word you are looking for is "evolution". Evolution means "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form." which is what you were trying to imply in your essay. If the event that you are not sure of the meaning of a word, don't use it. Find another way to describe what you want to say in the essay. Do it that way instead of losing points in the major scoring sections because these mistakes affect your GRA score as well.

I sense that you did major research in this essay in order to write it. Please don't do that. You only have 30 minutes to write this essay in the exam center and you don't have access to the internet there. You have to rely on your personal knowledge of popular topics to get by in the essay writing test. Bear in mind, you need to write quickly, logically, and comprehensibly in order to score well in this section. These needs can only be achieved through the development of a maximum of 5 paragraphs comprised of 5 simple to complex sentences each. You should not have any run on sentences, as you do in your current paragraphs, in the actual exam essay. If you do, then the GRA score for your essay will be even lower.

With this being your first essay written as a practice test, I will allow you room to grow and correct your mistakes. You have the time to do that. Just make sure that you improve on the problem points I pointed out here and also, post the prompt with your next essay alright? Thanks.