朗阁

11-14 观点类 – 环*话题

Some people believe that the responsibilities of protecting and reducing environmental damage are for politicians as individuals can do little on this thing. To what extent do you agree or disagree? 

题目大意：

有观点称环*主要靠政府，因为个人无能为力。同意反对？

思路：

同意反对类的题目，都是请你就一个主观的结论表态，而多数主观的思维都或多或少会有逻辑谬误，所以这类题型，都是建议选择反对的立场比较合

这道题目的错误在于这个结论所依据的前提站不住脚——前提individuals can do little on this thing 即个人是有能力改善环境，是一个未必的前提；所以建议可以从这个角度展开反驳；

反驳的结构：主体段-1：站在出题者的角度，分析对方为何会这样想；主体段-2：针对对方的理论漏洞予以反驳，再给出我的理论，并予以*。

提纲梳理如下：

范文：

Some people assert that there is no justification for individuals in tackling environmental problems, whereas it is a business exclusive to authorities; however, I will disagree with this opinion due to the reckless denial of individuals’ contributions.

Indeed, there are reasons as to why the populace bank on politicians preserving the ecosystem. From this perspective, environmental protection is recognized as a task that goes beyond the capability of individuals. Some ubiquitous conundrums regarding ecology consists of global warming, air pollution and energy exhaustion, none of which are reckoned to be mitigated by individuals’ self-discipline if without administrative measures, whether these be legislation against industrial waste, subsidies to encourage the use of renewable energy. In this respect, many go as far as to assume that individuals have little of a role to play in curbing environmental damage.

However, the problem with the above statement resides in the misinformation in its logical reasoning – the premise on which the devotees of the authority base their claim is not a truth but their presupposition – it is simplistic to presume that the public are incapable of curbing ecology catastrophes. Those ignoring the value of individuals are oblivious to the fact that many ecological problems are actually the result of individuals’ behaviors and therefore can be constrained without the intervention from the government. Back to the problem of global warming, it could be prevented to a large extent if households lived an eco-friendly lifestyle, such as reducing unnecessary use of private cars or air conditioners. By the same token, let’s not forget that any policies or regulations may end up vain without the participation of local residents.  One convincing example can be seen in the governmental appeal for waste recycle – had it not been the substantial action from the citizenry, the scheme would have been only existed in politician’s utopian prospect.

From what has been discussed, it is my conclusion therefore, it is illogical to venerate politicians over the general public in the environmental protection.