Agree or disagree? It’s important for government to protect wild animals and wilderness areas for the future generations.
Naturally, there can be no doubt the important role and the influence of environment in human life. Thus, I personally agree with statement that government should protect wild animals and wilderness areas for the future generation.
Firstly, wild life maintains ecological balance and the organisms have their own unique position in food chain, food webs which keep ecological balance. If we broke the ecological balance by human activities such as widespread industrialization and urbanization, we could devastate the environment badly which will make a lot of disasters in future. For the ecological balance in present and the future generation, I strongly recommend governments all over the world should protect wild animals and wilderness areas.
Secondly, wild life contributes to the maintenance material cycle such as nitrogen and oxygen cycle. Forests and animals live in there are the fundamental chain link of natural cycle which provides oxygen for all life on the Earth. For instance, Amazon - the largest forest in the world is called “the lung of the Earth” that supplies billion tons oxygen each year. However, during few years back, Amazon has been destroyed in order to provide food, medicine and so on. As a result, the ration of oxygen in atmosphere immediately decreases which makes the Greenhouse effect as well as affect to all species on the Earth.
Thirdly, by conserve wild animals and wilderness areas, governments could develop nature tourism in their own country. Each year, tourism especially nature tourism makes a big profit from serving wildlife and heritage service. Moreover, nature tourism also solves unemployment which seems to be the thorny subject in many countries.
In conclusion, protecting wild animals and wilderness areas benefit governments in myriad ways. Consequently, I totally believe it is sagacious to agree that governments protect wildlife for the future generation.
Hi, your writing is pretty good. Your introduction is a bit short. Some of your sentences sound too basic and a bit unnatural. You have some grammatical and sentence structure errors here and there, although your ideas are good and address the prompt correctly. Some of your arguments could be developed a bit more smoothly and completely though. Overall, I would rate this a 3 out of 5.