阅读材料
The world’s forests are indeed under tremendous pressure from industries and practices that deforest these important ecosystems. However, the suggestion put forth in the reading passage, that the creation of an international protection fund will help protect these areas, is flawed for several reasons. Firstly, agriculture is itself a destructive force upon the forest ecosystem. With the rising populations, farmers are under constant pressure to increase harvest yields by using modern agricultural technology and practices. These include harmful practices such as fertilizer and pesticide use which have been proven to be detrimental to the surrounding environments because they create runoff waste and water pollution. This in turn leads to deforestation at a rate much worse than that of logging. Continued promotion of agriculture as a solution to deforestation is not a good idea. Secondly, paying villagers and tribal communities a stipend is an inadequate solution to the deforestation problem. Disbursement of money from the international protection fund would mean that money would go to forest owners. More often than not these owners are in fact governments, not residents. Therefore, a payout of this sort would not end up in the hands of these forest dwellers. Additionally, there is no guarantee that if governments received money that it would be appropriately used to protect the forest. Finally, if money is spent promoting biodiversity by encouraging the planting of new forest, there is no doubt that people will plant trees which have commercial purposes. If people merely plant plantation forests, this will do nothing in the way of promoting the goal of forest biodiversity. As you can see, the development of an international monetary fund to protect developing countries’ forests is rather inadequate.
Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on the specific theories discussed in the reading passage.
Integrated Writing The passage concentrates on forest protection and lists three means that he thinks practical. However, the speaker retorts all the three ideas one by one. First, the writer reckons that international fund can be raised to protect mere agricultural use of the forest. But the lecturer points out that agricultural damage is a strong destructive force. In order to get harvest, farmers will use pesticide and fertile to help crops grow better. This will produce run-off waste and water pollution which was detrimental to forest condition. Therefore, the first approach of the passage is proved unconvincing. Second, the passage says government should help to develop the economics of nearby villages and tribal communities so they will not make money through damaging the forest. Nevertheless, the speaker regards this as an inadequate solution. He emphasizes that money given to landowners – the government will not be used for forest developers. It will not be properly used so the writer’s second idea is rebutted. Third, the author indicates that we should be cautious about the loss of biodiversity caused by forest destruction. Therefore, he argues that new trees should be planted to maintain biodiversity. But the speaker says that if people are encouraged to plant new trees, they will first choose certain kinds of trees which can bring them commercial benefits. Recovering forest biodiversity needs various kinds of trees. So merely planting money-making trees in fact will harm biodiversity. Thus reliably retorted the last argument in the essay. (245 words)
The reading passage states the merits of developing an international monetary fund to help combat the destruction of forests by developing nations. These notions, however, are discredited by the lecturer and said to be ineffective. First, the lecturer contends that disbursing money to farmers to help them resist loosing agricultural land to destructive industries is a poor idea. The lecturer states that it is in fact agriculture, not logging or property developers, which poses the largest threat to forest sustainability. The use of agricultural fertilizers and pesticides creates harmful waste water which leads to further destruction of forests. This conflicts the reading passage’s claim that protecting farmland is a crucial part to protecting forests Second, the lecturer states that most of the forest is not owned by farmers or forest dwellers, but is instead owned by governments. Providing a stipend to the landowners will not translate into a better education, health services or nutritional aid for the dwellers because this money would not end up in their hands. This directly rebuts the reading passage’s claim that financial aid to landowners would stimulate their economy and will limit forest destruction. The contention saying that promotion of tree biodiversity in threatened forests is irrational. To be specific, the lecturer states that if money is spent promoting forest rehabilitation by planting more trees, then most people would probably plant trees that have commercial uses. If this happens, the goal of forest restoration through biodiversity will fail. This goes against the ideas presented in the reading passage that an international fund will help increase forest biodiversity.
留言区中有很多我们对问题的解答喔， 登录后可以查看
还没有账号？马上 注册 >>