TWE
E-book - TOEFL SAMPLE ESSAYS
Covers 100% official TWE topics; sample answers for each
topic
|
TWE
E-book - TOEFL SAMPLE ESSAYS |
||
| Recommend this page to a friend | Search | ||
Online TOEFL® TWE® GRE® GMAT® AWA Writing Center
| Let
the TOEFL essay eBook help you with TOEFL preparation - Download
Now! TOEFL
Essay Course and Sample Essays - How to Get a Score of 6.0
NiceTopic 804: The following appeared in an environmental newsletter published in Tria Island. "The marine sanctuary on Tria Island was established to protect certain marine mammals. Its regulations ban dumping and offshore oil drilling within 20 miles of Tria, but fishing is not banned. Currently many fish populations in Tria's waters are declining, a situation blamed on pollution. In contrast, the marine sanctuary on Omni Island has regulations that ban dumping, offshore oil drilling, and fishing within 10 miles of Omni and Omni reports no significant decline in its fish populations. Clearly, the decline in fish populations in Tria's waters is the result of overfishing, not pollution. Therefore, the best way to restore Tria's fish populations and to protect all of Tria's marine wildlife is to abandon our regulations and adopt those of Omni. " Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. | Score & Analysis At first, protection of marine mammals should be the main priority. As the statement itself states tria’s sanctuary has been built to protect the marine mammals. The regulations are passed only for the ban of offshore oil drilling and dumping. In the Omni sanctuary they have passed strict regulations for all the hazardness that give rise to declination of the marine mammals. Tria’s sanctuary priority is to protect the mammals. The argument states that they have regulations for ban of dumping and offshore oil drilling. The decline in population of the fish in the sanctuary may be of several reasons. Like it may have been because of pollution, or it may have been for fishing. The reasons indicated in the argument does not support fishing. The loop hole in the argument is the regulations passed only for one of the activities. It is not clear as why the declination occurred there are no such justification as such. On the otherhand, Omni sanctuary has regulations on all the required bans that has to be made to prevent from the hazards caused to the marine mammals. The sanctuary doesn’t give the statistics of any declination or not in the population and can be implied that there is also a reduction in the population of the marine mammals but not to the extent of tria’s sanctuary. I can conclude that tria’s sanctuary have to adopt a new regulations to prevent the destruction of the mammals and protect them instead. It may not have to be omni’s regulations they can formulate there own regulations considering the factors that cause the reduction of the marine life. - written by sandeepbv7 | Computer score: 3 What to do: |
|
||||||
|
Copyright © 1999-2006 wayabroad.com All right reserved. | RSS Feed | Contact Us | Visit our sponsor |
|
| |
|