Human activity has had a negative impact on plants and animals around the world. Some people think this can not be changed, while others believe action can be taken to bring about a change. Discuss both sides and give your opinion.
In this rapidly changing world, humans are aggressively cutting down trees to construct roads,(1) which is adversely affecting flora and fauna around the globe. While some people believe that it is unavoidable since it is necessary to meet the demands of an increasing population, others argue that it can be
changed by planting more trees.(2) I agree with the latter view.
1. Is this the only domain in which human activity impacts plants and animals? Reserve narrow (micro) areas for an explanation in body paragraphs. In the introduction, mention broad ideas only. In this rapidly changing world, humans are exploiting flora and fauna to meet their needs.
2. Will the human demands reduce after planting more trees? IT = adverse effects on flora and fauna. This can be avoided by reducing human demand or finding alternatives such as recycling. Idea problem (TR).
On the one hand, due to the rise in population, there has been a substantial increase in
demands demand to build metro stations for daily commuting. To construct them, many trees are uprooted and if we avoid it them (use only one pronoun to refer to a noun.) to preserve nature, then (use a comma instead of then) it can create traffic congestion in the city. (3) For instance, Chandigarh, the a beautiful city of in India, was initially planned without metros to maintain the natural beauty of the city. In 2020, with a rise in population, natives of Chandigarh faced are facing traffic congestion problems. Thus, the Chandigarh government approved the plan to cut down 300 trees to build metro stations spread metro lines. (Can’t see the negative impact on animals. Rewrite the example: For instance, Chandigarh, the city beautiful, was initially planned for very few cars. But, with an increasing number of vehicles, the administration has decided to cut more than a million trees to build metro rail. This will lead to loss of habitat for hundreds of birds and mammals.)
3. There are two contrasting options. But, these can’t be connected through AND. While constructing them will lead to the uprooting of trees, avoiding them will result in crippling traffic jams.
On the other hand, many people believe that trees can be planted in a dedicated area to preserve nature and wildlife. For
every (every can’t be placed next to a verb. LR issue.) cutting down of a tree (work can’t cut trees. LR issue.) by construction work, (For every tree cut down to make space for a metro station, ….) more trees can be grown in that area. For instance, recently, the Singapore government has imposed a law stating that the National Highway authorities of Singapore have to plant two trees , (This is not a modifier but part of the main sentence. Preposition around links it with the main sentence. Moreover, if this is a modifier, it can’t modify ‘two trees’.) around the forest area of Singapore , for cutting down a tree to make roads. Now, despite building large infrastructures, the country has been able to maintain the same number of trees in the country (Unnecessary words and repetition.) as they were ten years ago. (What about animals? What about animals and birds who lost livelihood in the areas cleared of vegetation? Support your arguments with the complete context of the question. TR issue.)
To recapitulate, although some people
ponder (4) think that it is impossible to stop the negative impact of construction (Construction is not the only human activity.) on animals and plants, I believe that efforts to plant trees in a dedicated area are is sufficient to curb the negative impacts on them.
4. Though there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this word, PONDER refers to thinking about something at length. Naturally, a person ponders about solutions, problems, etc. They never ponder about situations about which they can’t do anything (impossible to stop negative impact).