F
Frenk969
Guest
It is true that whilst many people use their public parks, this space could be used for other purposes, such as building houses for young people or developing a business area to create jobs.
Explain to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement.
Nowadays, public parks’ use is a controversial issue. While most people spend their spare time running in the parks or having a picnic, others underscore they are useless and should be replaced by firms, opinion with which I do not concur.
The replacement of green areas with new establishments would create a large number of job opportunities. Moreover, their construction could have implication for unemployment reduction. The knock-on effect would also reflect on the whole economy, resulting in better living standards altogether. Although grounds for assuming this possibility is viable seem correct, a large number of reasons state otherwise.
Several studies conducted on the topic contradict these opinions. From an economic point of view, the whole project requires high-level of financial investments. Therefore, exception made for the Government, private investors are excluded from participating. Furthermore, as mentioned above, people use these areas to detach from their stressful routine, and would not appreciate any changes in their lifestyle. Last but not least, ecologically speaking, parks have a vital role in protecting the environment, and their utility is undeniable. Their disappearance would be extremely deleterious for life on the Earth.
In conclusion, not only would the replacement of public parks detrimental, but it would also affect our lives, and in the long run, our climate either. In other words, the main conclusion to be drawn from this evaluation is that parks should be preserved as much as possible. Consequently, I must take issue with most people opinion, as I hold the view they are groundless.
B VERSION
Nowadays, public parks’ use is a controversial issue. While most people spend their spare time running in the parks or having a picnic, others underscore they are useless and should be replaced by firms, opinion with which I do not concur.
The replacement of green areas with new establishments would create a large number of job opportunities. Moreover, their construction could have implication for unemployment reduction, which knock-on effect would also reflect on the whole economy, resulting in better living standards altogether. Although grounds for assuming this possibility is viable seem correct, a large number of reasons state otherwise.
Several studies conducted on the topic contradict these opinions. From an economic point of view, the whole project requires high-level of financial investments. Therefore, exception made for the Government, private investors are excluded from participating. Furthermore, as mentioned above, people use these areas to detach from their stressful routine, and would not appreciate any changes in their lifestyle. Last but not least, ecologically speaking, parks have a vital role in protecting the environment, and their utility is undeniable. Thus, should they be removed, life on Earth would be put in jeopardy.
In conclusion, not only would the replacement of public parks detrimental, but it would also affect our lives, and in the long run, our climate either. In other words, the main conclusion to be drawn from this evaluation is that parks should be preserved as much as possible. Consequently, I must take issue with most people opinion, as I hold the view they are groundless.
Explain to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement.
Nowadays, public parks’ use is a controversial issue. While most people spend their spare time running in the parks or having a picnic, others underscore they are useless and should be replaced by firms, opinion with which I do not concur.
The replacement of green areas with new establishments would create a large number of job opportunities. Moreover, their construction could have implication for unemployment reduction. The knock-on effect would also reflect on the whole economy, resulting in better living standards altogether. Although grounds for assuming this possibility is viable seem correct, a large number of reasons state otherwise.
Several studies conducted on the topic contradict these opinions. From an economic point of view, the whole project requires high-level of financial investments. Therefore, exception made for the Government, private investors are excluded from participating. Furthermore, as mentioned above, people use these areas to detach from their stressful routine, and would not appreciate any changes in their lifestyle. Last but not least, ecologically speaking, parks have a vital role in protecting the environment, and their utility is undeniable. Their disappearance would be extremely deleterious for life on the Earth.
In conclusion, not only would the replacement of public parks detrimental, but it would also affect our lives, and in the long run, our climate either. In other words, the main conclusion to be drawn from this evaluation is that parks should be preserved as much as possible. Consequently, I must take issue with most people opinion, as I hold the view they are groundless.
B VERSION
Nowadays, public parks’ use is a controversial issue. While most people spend their spare time running in the parks or having a picnic, others underscore they are useless and should be replaced by firms, opinion with which I do not concur.
The replacement of green areas with new establishments would create a large number of job opportunities. Moreover, their construction could have implication for unemployment reduction, which knock-on effect would also reflect on the whole economy, resulting in better living standards altogether. Although grounds for assuming this possibility is viable seem correct, a large number of reasons state otherwise.
Several studies conducted on the topic contradict these opinions. From an economic point of view, the whole project requires high-level of financial investments. Therefore, exception made for the Government, private investors are excluded from participating. Furthermore, as mentioned above, people use these areas to detach from their stressful routine, and would not appreciate any changes in their lifestyle. Last but not least, ecologically speaking, parks have a vital role in protecting the environment, and their utility is undeniable. Thus, should they be removed, life on Earth would be put in jeopardy.
In conclusion, not only would the replacement of public parks detrimental, but it would also affect our lives, and in the long run, our climate either. In other words, the main conclusion to be drawn from this evaluation is that parks should be preserved as much as possible. Consequently, I must take issue with most people opinion, as I hold the view they are groundless.
Last edited:
