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 m

Essay topics:

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.

It is popularly believed that nations ought to pass laws which are aimed at preserving the wilderness areas in their natural state. Although this idea has many proponents, I cannot agree with it because it is highly improbable to fulfill it and even if it is accepted and enforced properly, perhaps, it will not tackle the problems which harass us today.

To begin with, it is a common true that our actions have deteriorated the planet, in fact, we depleted the ozone layer, our activity causes the excessive creation of greenhouse gases which lead to global warming and rising sea levels. Moreover, because of our intervention in the nature many of species of animals and plants have become extinct or are listened as endangered species. From this viewpoint, the proposed policy is a great opportunity to combat those problems to stop us from ruining our home, our planet. However, if we take closer look at the proposal, is it possible to fulfill the policy?

Unfortunately, I think that the answer on this painful question is "no" because our population is steadily growing and, as a result, our demand and food and other resources from water to fossil fuels and metals will be growing as well. The fulfillment of the policy may lead to famine and death of tens of millions. To illustrate the idea, we may compute that today our productivity is not enough to prevent hunger in Africa, consequently, when the population of Earth will increase by milliard of people, the existing resources will be insufficient. Of course, the usage of modern agriculture technologies and genetic improvements of crops may temporarily alleviate the problem but will not solve it permanently. Moreover, we try to create and use new renewable technologies but their development and design require from us to search and unearth new materials, for example, to build TOYOTA PRIUS a new plant was built in China to acquire needed materials to create batteries. In other words, we need to exploit those wilderness areas and thus it is unthinkable to implement the policy.

Furthermore, even if we accept for granted that policy is working, the realization of it may not tackle our environmental problems. Perhaps, our actions have depleted the nature too much and simple stopping of our destructive activity will not revitalize or cure it. The global warming is a good example of the problem. Today the volume of exhausted gases is enough to provoke the rising of the planet’s temperature. In case we stop developing new areas and stop producing new emission, how can we be sure that process will be inevitable reversed? The likeliness exists that our actions not only disturb the nature but damage is lethally. In this case, only active actions such as planting new forests and cleaning up seas and rivers may help us to prevent the catastrophe. In other words, even unlikely implementation of the policy probably will not solve our problems with the contamination.

In conclusion, the idea that we should stop destroying environment is widespread and publicly acceptable; however, the proposed policy is created in such a way that its realization is improbable, moreover, even in case of the successful fulfillment, the proposal may not bring expected results. Therefore, I disagree with the prompt.

Average: 5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


it is a common true that
it is a common truth that

In the third argument why the policy is related to 'our environmental problems.' ? second, suppose it is related to 'our environmental problems.', are the laws enough to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state?

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 544 350
No. of Characters: 2671 1500
No. of Different Words: 268 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.829 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.91 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.769 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.727 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.992 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.288 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5


I assumed that the policy is aimed at solving ecological problems and therefore I stated that because it may not completely solve the problems, it should not be implemented. I believed that the preservation of wilderness has goal to tackle environmental problems.

Am I correct?

Should I concentrate my attention on preservation of wilderness in today condition?

Thank you.

p.s. I know that I misunderstood something, I am trying to find the problem.

I carefully reread my essay. So, I want to check my guesses.
It seems that the third paragraph is out of scope because it is concentrated on environmental problems when I should explain why the preservation of wilderness is a good or bad idea.

Am I correct?

Thank you.