Granted, the long view will provide little consolation to those who are desperately in need of food now. Some argue that it is better to make environmental sacrifices in order to start saving lives today, and to just deal with serious environmental problems down the line as they arise. While I believe there is some merit to this, I do not think that should be the first option we turn to—wouldn't it make much more sense to just tackle the poverty and distribution problem directly, alleviating hunger through more considered means, and avoid the potential environmental pitfalls entirely?
The situation presents difficult ethical quandary—do we choose to let people suffer now, so that more may avoid pain later? Or do we help them now, and hope that we do not dig everybody into an even bigger hole down the line? Ultimately it will be a trying decision, but what is clear is that something must be done; though neither choice is without its drawbacks, they are both preferable to inaction.
以上就是3月22日北美托福写作机经整理，希望各位考友合理利用机经，认真备考，获得一个自己理想的成绩。
