本人写作能力极其有限~词汇量匮乏~作文总是写不完~ 这篇是当时写完 粘贴下来又做了一些修改后的文章~ 请大家看看是什么水平~后天考试，心里没底啊····有什么问题大家一定要指出来啊````` According to the speaker in the listening material, the "let it burn "policy should not be abandoned. She contends that the fire actually benefits nature, helps to complete the natural cycle, thus make the nature more creative. However, this viewpoint contradicts the statement in the reading passage.
First of all, the lecturer indicates that the fire encourages the trees in forest to become more diverse, in addition, it brings precious opportunities for some kinds of plants to grow. For instance, some smaller plants will thrive on the open field where tree are burned down, some seeds may begin to grow with the help of heat. Nevertheless, this standpoint disagree with what the reading states: the fire causes tremendous damage to trees and vegetation.
Secondly, according to the speaker, the wildlife in the park recovered soon after the fire of 1980s in the yellow stone park, moreover, the fire even brought new chances for animals. Because of the thrive of small plants, there are habitants more than before provided for wildlife, hence, the predators of the small animals will find it easier to survive. Thus, the fire made the food chains stronger. Nonetheless, this opinion disproves the statement of the reading that the fire has bad effect on the wildlife.
Finally, the lecturer states that the fire does not often happen, and it is due to some abnormal conditions like bad wether conditions that the fire burned in 1980s in the yellow stone park. What's more, that fire had week effect on the tourists the year after that, not mention the economy. As a matter of fact, the tourists came back the year later. So the assertion that the fire ruined the business is definitely groundless.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-9-6 14:15:11
收藏
收藏
楼主
