雅思写作真题：城镇开发区种树还是建房子?

　　Some people think that it is more important to plant more trees in open areas in towns and cities than provides more housing. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

　　有人认为比起提供更多的房子，在城镇开放地区种更多的树更为重要。你在多大程度上同意或者不同意?

　　参考范文【1】

　　Urbanization urges some city dwellers to reckon that priorities should be given to vegetation over constructions when it comes to the rare empty lots. In my view, they are being too naive and arbitrary since the answer to the exploitation of the open area lies on the size of the area.

　　On the one hand, if the targeted area of the open space is limited, it is better to grow trees rather than construct houses. Otherwise, small spacing between buildings would add more sense of oppression and depression to city residents and white collars. Besides, the function of trees inhaling carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen would dramatically alleviate greenhouse gas effects. More importantly, trees are essential in preserving soil and water and preventing desertification.

　　On the other hand, the spare land, when large enough, will be of greater value with a new building. Adequate residential districts will ease the intense of high housing price and multi-story commercial towers will accommodate a larger number of employed gifts and talents. The reason why a city can be called a city is that it is convenient for people around it to go there within a short time. Obviously, buildings allow the influx of new blood that stimulates the vitality and creativity of a city while trees seem to be inappropriate for them to meet and talk over coffee.

　　In a nutshell, it is the area of the open spaces that determines whether there should be more greenery or concrete instead, so it is far from comprehensive for some impetuous environmentalists to blindly appeal for more trees wherever urban spare spaces are found.

　　参考范文【2】

　　When it comes to the issue about how towns and cities could utilize their open areas, some people may argue that planting more trees seems more crucial than constructing more houses, but I cannot agree with this opinion.

　　Admittedly, having more trees may contribute to protecting our environment. Currently, vehicles may produce a lot of toxic gases, posing a threat to the environment, especially the environment in downtown. Then, if there exist more trees in a city or a town, those plants could filter some gases, such as carbon dioxide that may aggravate global warming. Nevertheless, offering residents more dwelling places may be one of the top priorities for the authorities.

　　Initially, a larger number of houses in cities could alleviate dweller’s economic burdens. It is common that the price of real estate in some cities could be so high that normal citizens cannot afford it. If governments could supply more houses, then, the price of housing may be lowered correspondingly since the supply of housing may exceed its demand. Then, more individuals are potent to own a house in cities, but not live in a temporary one anymore.

　　Furthermore, building more houses in towns and counties could also serve to boost local economy. When governments decide to construct more buildings in towns, it may lead to a better economic outlook. For example, if there were more houses available for either living or commercial purpose in a town, more investors would find its potential and naturally more funding would also be allocated to that town. Then, local economy could be improved a lot with both financial support from governments and private investment from merchants.

　　In sum, considering that a larger quantity of houses could reduce economic burdens of citizens and function as a catalyst for rural development simultaneously, building more houses deserves more attention and budgets from the government.