0
Nekosama Posted 9 years ago
Essay & Composition Writing
Proofreading? (14-Dec-2016.)
Hi, teachers, please help me correct my article if there are any mistakes. Thank you!
A large number of people maintain that both governments and individuals are spending too much money on protecting animals and their habitats. They also assert that this sum of money could be better used to deal with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care.
Although it would be easy to take this statement at face value, the issue is a complex one which needs to be explored more in depth.
As far as I am concerned, there are three important reasons to disagree with the above statement that people should spend more money on society issues than the animal protection.
Firstly, ecological environment, the organic combination of human being, natural animals, vegetation and micro-organism, is the foundation of human development and existence; animals play an inevitable part in the whole food chain and have a great impact on the sustainability of an ecosystem. It is generally known that the demise of any species will lead to the growth or decline of other species. Therefore, if we do not take action to protect animals, our human beings will be endangered sequentially.
Furthermore, the second reason is related to health. By observing a particular species of endangered monkeys in South America, scientists have discovered that monkeys eat a certain kind of plant when they get sick. Through the research the scientists discovered that this plant also has medicinal value for humans. If the monkey's habitat had been destroyed to create more farmland, not only would we lose the plants and the monkeys, we would also lose life-saving medicines and the potential for medical research.
Last but not least, just imagine what will happen if we destroy endangered species habitats to develop more farmland, housing or industrial parks. The answer is quite overt-natural disaster. Global climate change, environmental pollution, deforestation and soil erosion are strong proofs of the retaliation from nature. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, second to none in China. It has a great negative impact on the national development as well as the citizen’s health level. Therefore, investing money and efforts in the protection of animals and their habitats are worthwhile.
In conclusion, that’s not to say that other points of view are completely unassailable.
There are still many countries where people live in starvation, chaos and even wars. The governments around the world should spend more money to deal with these problems effectively.
Nevertheless, for the opinions I have mentioned above, I think protecting animal does more good than harm in the long run, and it is more important than dealing with society issues.
A large number of people maintain that both governments and individuals are spending too much money on protecting animals and their habitats. They also assert that this sum of money could be better used to deal with fundamental issues in society such as poverty and health care.
Although it would be easy to take this statement at face value, the issue is a complex one which needs to be explored more in depth.
As far as I am concerned, there are three important reasons to disagree with the above statement that people should spend more money on society issues than the animal protection.
Firstly, ecological environment, the organic combination of human being, natural animals, vegetation and micro-organism, is the foundation of human development and existence; animals play an inevitable part in the whole food chain and have a great impact on the sustainability of an ecosystem. It is generally known that the demise of any species will lead to the growth or decline of other species. Therefore, if we do not take action to protect animals, our human beings will be endangered sequentially.
Furthermore, the second reason is related to health. By observing a particular species of endangered monkeys in South America, scientists have discovered that monkeys eat a certain kind of plant when they get sick. Through the research the scientists discovered that this plant also has medicinal value for humans. If the monkey's habitat had been destroyed to create more farmland, not only would we lose the plants and the monkeys, we would also lose life-saving medicines and the potential for medical research.
Last but not least, just imagine what will happen if we destroy endangered species habitats to develop more farmland, housing or industrial parks. The answer is quite overt-natural disaster. Global climate change, environmental pollution, deforestation and soil erosion are strong proofs of the retaliation from nature. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, second to none in China. It has a great negative impact on the national development as well as the citizen’s health level. Therefore, investing money and efforts in the protection of animals and their habitats are worthwhile.
In conclusion, that’s not to say that other points of view are completely unassailable.
There are still many countries where people live in starvation, chaos and even wars. The governments around the world should spend more money to deal with these problems effectively.
Nevertheless, for the opinions I have mentioned above, I think protecting animal does more good than harm in the long run, and it is more important than dealing with society issues.
Top answer
A large number of people maintain that both governments and individuals are spending too much money on protecting animals and their habitats. They also assert that this sum of money could be better used to spent deal ing with fundamental more urgent issues in society such as poverty and healt hc are. Although it would be easy to take this statement at face value, the issue is a complex one which needs to be explored more in depth.
- A large number of people maintain that both governments and individuals are spending too much money on protecting animals and their habitats.
- They also assert that this sum of money could be better used to spent deal ing with fundamental more urgent issues in society such as poverty and healt hc are.
- Although it would be easy to take this statement at face value, the issue is a complex one which needs to be explored more in depth.
- You have used this line before.
- It doesn't work!
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
A large number of people maintain that both governments and individuals are spending too much money on protecting animals and their habitats. They also assert that this sum of money could be better used to spent dealing with fundamental more urgent issues in society such as poverty and healthcare.
0
Related Questions