Task：Nowadays both scientists and tourists can go to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

　　Sample answer：

　　Unknown natural is always brimming with seductive scenery. Plenty of researchers and travelers make trips to distant natural places, such as the Mount Qomolangma, Antarctica and the North Pole. I am of the opinion that this has more disadvantages than advantages.

　　Discover of new areas always bring some irreparable destruction. Before the South Pole is in the sight of public, it was once an uncharted territory. Since its discovery, hundreds of explorers and scientists had taken adventures to this wilderness. At the same time, their scientific expedition may leave some geographical environment destruction there. And it is quite troublesome to make up such destruction.

　　Although travelers extremely enjoy the breathtaking natural landscape, they bring along tremendous risks. One of the most common phenomenon of travelers is producing pollution to local areas. As reported in many cases, holidaymakers have left behind tons of waste in the Antarctica over the last century. They will not only threaten the survival of many creatures, including endangered species such as penguins and seals, but also cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

　　In addition, we cannot avoid the fact that untouched environments are scientifically proved to have considerable oil and gas reserves. Currently, the world fuel supply is running out in the next fifty years, and no countries will help themselves from the temptation of these fuel resources. The greed of people will drive them to drain out the resource in these regions, and by then places like the South Pole will be truly deserted.

　　In conclusion, I confirm that travelling to virgin land will bring far more losses than gains.

　　(265 words)