- UID
- 726586
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-2-23
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Tpo20
The passage and the speaker express opposite views on the issue concerning whether the “let it burn” policy has apparent advantages for forests.
First, the passage points out that one third of Yellowstone’s lands were destroyed in the fire, which result in a consequence that national treasure converts to ruins. The speaker, however, is skeptical about the point, conveying a message that fire just provide an appropriate opportunity for small plants which need open and shaded environment and seed that require sufficient heat to grow up. And, as a result, there would be an increasing diversity of species in the area.
Second, the reading suggests that it’s impossible for tiny animals to flee from the area, thereby, the habitats and food chains would suffer an all-round damage. Nevertheless, the professor cites the fact that on the contrary, the population would raise soon and at the same time there would be suitable habitat for small animals like rabbits and hares, moreover, their predators’ number would increase immediately and it’s inevitable to have a stronger chain.
Third, the speaker is convinced that the 1988 fire is only occurred merely because of the accidental factors’ combination like low rain fall, intensive strong winds and so on, so we can foresee that it would not happen in a long period and the tourism would recover to be flourishing just in the second year. This directly contradicts the passage’s claim that the economic would suffer a inflict heavy loss because the tourism value of the park is crippled.
本人感觉太冗长，有些同义替换也做的不太好 |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-2-25 23:50:12
收藏
收藏
