(AI2)[求助]加急，第一篇AI,2天后要考了，请nn指点！ - ChaseDream

第一篇AI, 11月3号就考了，请各位nn指点。未改动！想请问这样的字数够不够？这样的水平会不会低于4.0?谢谢各位了！

Should public visiting the national parks and historical sites be restricted greatly for the protection of them. Some people assert that public access to them should be greatly restricted to protest national parks and historical while others argue that there should be few restrictions because such places were intended for everyone to use. It is nature that people with different personal experience and background will make different dicitions. I inclined to the contention that it should depond on case-by-case analysis.

Every years, many visitors go to visit national parks and historical sites to spead their lesiture time. Accordingly, the envrioment of these sites will degard heavily. Therefore, the government is able to protect the national parks and famous sites by restriction on visition to them. A lot of national parks will become worse and worse easily due to the visiting of the too much people and some historical sites will be broken heavily beause visitors do some damages to their stuffs. Moreover, if a great number of people go to these places in a short period of time, the famous places will not afford visition anymore.

However, what does the exsitence of these famous sites mean? The means of these national parks and historical sites are to face to the people who really enjoy and prefer them. Without the visiting of people to these places, these sites will have no sense to exist. Additionly, some sites can bear a larger number of people to visit without degration. For explam, the summer palace of China in beijing is open to public greatly every day, but no more report about the big damages to the summer palace are issued. Ac

Nither the contention that public access to the famous sites should be restricted greatly nor the assertion that the famous places should open to public all the time. The question is so complex that I can not reach a general answer. Whether the public famous place should be restriced to the people depends on case-by-case analysis.

以下是引用z520m在2005-11-1 22:52:00的发言：

第一篇AI, 11月3号就考了，请各位nn指点。未改动！想请问这样的字数够不够？这样的水平会不会低于4.0?谢谢各位了！

Should public visiting the national parks and historical sites be restricted greatly for the protection of them.改问号 While Some people assert that public access to them指代不清 should be greatly restricted to protest national parks and historical，~~while~~ others argue that there should be few restrictions because such places were intended for everyone to use. It is natural ~~that~~ for people ~~with~~ hold different personal experience and background according to different dicitions（不懂）. I inclined to the contention that it should depond on case-by-case analysis.

However, what does the exsitence of these famous sites mean?这样表达不太好 The means of these national parks and historical sites are to face to the people who really enjoy and prefer them. Without the visiting of people to these places, these sites will have no sense to exist. Additionly, some sites can bear a larger number of people to visit without degration. For explam, the summer palace最好大写开头 of China in beijing is open to public greatly every day, but no more report about the big damages to the summer palace are issued. Ac

Nither the contention that public access to the famous sites should be restricted greatly nor the assertion that the famous places should open to public all the time. 这句话表达不太好The question is so complex that I can not reach a general answer. Whether the public famous place should be restriced to the people depends on case-by-case analysis.