The key to solve environmental problems is that the present generation is willing to accept a less comfortable life for the sake of the future generation. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
题目来源：2020年8月22日大陆雅思大作文
题目大意
有观点称保护环境的关键是当代人愿意为了下一代而牺牲生活质量。同意反对？
思路解析
➡️一般同意反对类的题目，都是一个比较武断的结论，选择反对的立场比较合
➡️这道题目中的关键词是the key. Collins词典对key的解释是“The key person or thing in a group is the most important one.”—— 即是一种表达。因此，建议取反对的立场，并在论证中提出更有效的办法即可。
➡️反驳的结构：主体段-1：站在出题者的角度，分析对方为何会这样想；主体段-2：针对对方的理论漏洞予以反驳，再给出我的理论，并予以证明
提纲
写作示范
There is an assumption that the important solution to protect the environment in the long-term perspective should be at the cost of living standards of current generation. Personally, I would say it is an oversimplified conclusion due to the irrelevant connection between environmental disruption and our lifestyle.
Indeed, it is not difficult to understand why a change in our lifestyle is deemed pivotal to the environmental conservation. Those who think in this way opt to attribute the majority of ecological problems to our preference for convenience, whether it be our reliance on disposable products such as plastic bags, prepared food that contains lots of packaging, or overuse of private cars; all these are recognized as major culprits of pollution. In this respect, some environmentalists conclude that curbing our preference for a convenient life is essential to mitigate pollution on the planet. For example, the less use of private cars could fundamentally reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Plausible though the logic seems, it does not necessarily mean the better environment hinges exclusively on people living a less comfortable life. The problem with the above reasoning is that the conclusion is based on the overgeneralization of the reason – the so-called ‘environmental problems’ are not the simple result of our preference for convenient life; rather, other factors also contribute to the tricky condition. Examples can be seen in the global warming caused by industrial discharge, or the shrinkage of habitat of flora and fauna due to the relentless urbanization. In response to these, a change in lifestyle of the populace doesn’t seem to be the key panacea, whereas the other options might be more effective. A more practical approach is for the government to subsize industries in using greener energy (e.g. solar and wind power), or to legislate against city expansion plan that encroaches on natural habitats.
It is my conclusion therefore, the environmental preservation is not correlated solely with our way of living, while it is a trick condition that need multiple measures.
