Technical progress is always harmful for the environment

[Ильмира]

There is an opinion that new technical inventions have bad effects on the environment. However, some people think that technical progress is harmless and very useful for people. I believe that the first point of view is right. I would like to explain my position.

In my opinion, almost all things people invent influence on the environment in a negative way. For example, a car. I think it is one of the most dangerous inventions for the nature. Cars throw harmful elements into the air and so pollute it. These element have bad effects on the nature and especially people's health. Besides, technical progress provides the growth of different factories. Most of them pollute the air and the water. Consequently, different fishes and animals die.

On the other hand, some people say that technical inventions are not very harmful for the environment because some of them can help the nature. Nowadays people invent different filters that make the air and the water clean.

I strongly disagree with this view. Technical inventions that destroy the nature are more than those that can save it because people are interested in their own benefits more.

To sum up, there are different points of view on this problem. Despite other people's opinion, I still believe that technical progress is very bad for the environment. It pollutes the nature, kills animals and makes people unhealthy.

(230 слов)

[English Guru]

These element

elements

Most of them pollute the air and the water.

Странные артикли the air, the water... Определенный воздух и вода? Вода и воздух вокруг них? Читатель не должен додумывать.

Во втором абзаце много раз слово pollute, у него есть синоним contaminate и др.

some of them can help the nature

Артикль перед nature не нужен

Technical inventions that destroy the nature are more than those that can save it because people are interested in their own benefits more.

но я понял с 3 раза)))

13/14 Эссе понравилось, сильные аргументы, отличная лексика, грамматика, связки. Чуток перемудрили с артиклями...

[Ильмира]

Спасибо! Получается, перед water, air, nature артикли вообще никогда не ставятся? И насчет предложения, которое вы поняли с 3 раза): лучше не нужно писать такие длинные предложения?

[English Guru]

water, air, nature артикли вообще никогда не ставятся?

Они ставятся по обычным правилам. Только если это конкретная вода, тогда ставим артикль the. # The water you gave me yesterday. В других случаях -нет.

лучше не нужно писать такие длинные предложения?

дело не в его длине, а в количестве союзов, которые перегружают предложение. Сможете красиво перевести его на русский язык?

[Mikki]

Скажите ,а "to ","a","the"- всё это считается ?

[English Guru]

Mikki, Да, конечно