GRE essay-preserving the wilderness

Hi,
Can someone please grade this essay. My test is coming up soon

¨Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.¨

Yes, I completely agree with this statement. All the nations must pass laws to preserve the remaining wilderness. Ideally almost 1/3rd of a nation must be covered in forests, but nowadays due to industrialisation and population expansion deforestation is increasing. The consequences of this trend is heinous therefore appropriate steps must be taken to prevent them.

Air pollution is increasing due to the scarcity of trees. Air pollution is mainly caused by wastes from industries and exhaust from automobiles. The latter is the main reason for the increase in the amount of carbon-di-oxide in the atmosphere. As a result the temperature of the earth is increasing resulting in global warming. With the increasing in temperature the polar ice caps will melt resulting in the increase in sea water levels and many coastal cities will be submerged. Trees are the only way to solve this problem. Trees, as part of photosynthesis process will take in carbon-di-oxide and give oxygen.

Not only this but another process called transpiration which occurs in trees is responsible for releasing of water droplets into the atmosphere. This will aid the formation of clouds resulting in higher rainfall.

Another major consequence of diminishing wilderness is the extinction of animals. As the natural habitats of the animals are being destroyed, many animals die due to the non availability of resources. Many carnivores enter into towns and villages and start attacking domestic animals and in some extreme cases they even turn into man eaters. The whole food chain gets affected. All the animals and birds also have a right to call this planet their home and man must respect that. He does not have the right to encroach upon their homes.

Humans are short-sighted beings. Even though majority of us know the ill effects of diminishing wilderness we do not take any measures to prevent it. Preserving the wilderness will be close to impossible without the government passing some kind of law. There are also some economic gains to be obtained from preserving wilderness. Man is a selfish being, without some kind of benefit he does not do anything. By preserving forests, it is possible to obtain woods like teakwood, sandalwood which have very high demand. A small portion of the forests can be allocated to companies which make use of these.

I think "Carbon dioxide" is better than "carbon-di-oxide"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Hey, I found a grammar error:
The consequences of this trend is heinous therefore appropriate steps must be taken to prevent them.

Air pollution is increasing due to the scarcity of trees.---This sentence is not worded very well. The scarcity does not cause the pollution; it causes a situation where the greenhouse gases stay up in the atmosphere. I know what you mean, but this should be reworded. Also, you do not have to spend this paragraph talking about how photosynthesis works; it is sufficient to point out that the trees are important for getting carbon back under the earth. :-) But I don't think you need to explain the process.

Humans are short-sighted beings.---Yep. :-)

You should spend a paragraph to talk about why your argument is more important than the counter argument. What would be the counter argument? Some people would say more deforestation is acceptable because of economic hardships faced by nations, etc., and so you should make an argument to show that EVEN THOUGH there is economic difficulty we still should preserve the forests.

This is pretty great!!