- Partage ce devoir avec tes amis !
Sujet du devoir
Voila, je dois faire un script d'un debat ou deux personne essayent de savoir si oui ou non il faut aider les animaux dans les parcs nationaux : pouvez-vous corriger des fautes si il y en a ? et me dire si c'est bien? merci !Où j'en suis dans mon devoir
the first person : I think it’s a very good idea to preserve the wildlife in national parks, it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us.the second person : No, I don’t agree ! preserve wildlife in the parks are going to let
disappear more faster the species !
the first person : no, often the humans help to get back the species that had disappeared.
The second person : your remember the managers of Yellowstone who trying to save the elk ? Everyone know that instead of saving it they made it disappear the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers.
the first person : But it’s just that the aid hasn’t been given correctly, the directors of the park have made bad décisions : they knew nothing of the animal life
the second person : But who can give a good help to the animals ? wild life is too complicated, no one can know in advance what actions will help the animals and which will make them disapear faster.
the first person : Yes, there are experts for that but it’s that saving animals isn’t an easy task, there must have good teams that will evaluate all the animals and their actions it'll be long! but it’s a good thing, after thèse animals will be saved !
the second person : So it will be very expensive ! all countries can’t pay all the depenses for preserve the wildlife parks, it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but the animals are less able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will disapear and countries are able to pay very expensive to save these endangered animals, so why not do it ?
the second person : If these animals are no longer able to fend for themselves it’s beacause for many years there were aid and now they are habituated to this help. We need to stop to save they and it will help they better.
8 commentaires pour ce devoir
...in the national parks....
......agree!Preserving wildwife in the park is going to make the species disappear faster.
Do you remember...who tried...? Everybody knows....they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
...took the wrong decisions: they don't know anything about animal life.
....disappear...
Yes, there are experts, but saving animals is not an easy task....and their action will be long.....after these...
....all the countries can't give a financial help to preserve wildwife in the parks..
....disappearare able to give a lot of money...
...it's because...there was a financial aid (assistance)and now they are accustomed to this help....to save them and it will help them better.
......agree!Preserving wildwife in the park is going to make the species disappear faster.
Do you remember...who tried...? Everybody knows....they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
...took the wrong decisions: they don't know anything about animal life.
....disappear...
Yes, there are experts, but saving animals is not an easy task....and their action will be long.....after these...
....all the countries can't give a financial help to preserve wildwife in the parks..
....disappearare able to give a lot of money...
...it's because...there was a financial aid (assistance)and now they are accustomed to this help....to save them and it will help them better.
Merci beaucoup, ca faisait 3 fois que je le relisais et je ne trouvais plus de fautes mais je vois qu'il y en avait encore pleins !
Merci, mais j'ai un peu de mal a me retrouver parceque vous avez mis trop de petit points. peut etre que ca aurais été mieux si vous aviez copié/collé mon texte et que vous aviez fait comme lilin un peu plus haut ... je prends quand même note des fautes que j'ai faites ! et merci pour votre aide !
Non c'est bien national parks, c'est en général donc en anglais on omet l'article.
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
Non c'est bien national parks, c'est en général donc en anglais on omet l'article.
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
Non c'est bien national parks, c'est en général donc en anglais on omet l'article.
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us. Je ne comprends pas ta phrase. Cette phrase n'a pas de sens à mes yeux. It will stop the complete disappearance of many endangered species. Cela stoppera la disparition définitive de beaucoup d'espèces en danger.
Ensuite : No I don't agree with you! Preserving wildlife in national parks will make endangered species disappear faster. Reformulation de la phrase.
The second person: Do you remember the managers of Yellowstone who tried to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear.
the first person : But the main reason was that the aid was not correctly provided*, the directors of the park made wrong decisions : they did not know anything about animal life. Et c'est bien to make a decision et pas to take a decision. *Tu avais mis le present perfect alors que ceci est révolu. Donc il faut mettre le prétérit.
the second person : But who can really help those animals ? Wildlife is too complicated anyway….Nobody can tell in advance what actions will be required to help the animals and which one of them will make them disappear faster.
the first person : Yes, But there are experts in this field. Saving animals is not an easy task. High-skilled teams are required to assess the situation. Their actions will prove efficient in the long run. But this is necessary if we want to save them.
the second person : But it will be very expensive ! all the countries cannot afford to pay so much money for the preservation of wild parks. , it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but animals are no longer able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will soon disappear and many countries are willing to spend a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why don’t we do it?
the second person The reason why animals are no longer able to defend themselves is because help has been given for many years and now they are used to this help. We need to stop saving them. It can only help them!
merci ! je crois que je vais rendre un bon devoir grace a vous trois !
Ils ont besoin d'aide !
- Aucun devoir trouvé, poste ton devoir maintenant.
framboise789
2nde
+ Histoire / Anglais
Profil de framboise789
Fin du devoir pour le 13 Février
Script sur un debat entre deux peronnes qui veulent ou ne veulent pas aider les animaux dans les parcs nationaux
Devoir Anglais - Exercice - 2nde
Sujet :
Voila, je dois faire un script d'un debat ou deux personne essayent de savoir si oui ou non il faut aider les animaux dans les parcs nationaux : pouvez-vous corriger des fautes si il y en a ? et me dire si c'est bien? merci !
Où j'en suis :
the first person : I think it’s a very good idea to preserve the wildlife in national parks, it will keep more animals on Earth because many species are endangered without us.
the second person : No, I don’t agree ! (preserve)preserving wildlife in the parks (are)is going to let the species
disappear faster (the species) !
the first person : no, often Humans help to get back the species that (had) have disappeared.
The second person :do remember the managers of Yellowstone who were trying to save the elk ? Everyone knows that instead of saving it they made the vegetation, the wolves and even the beavers disappear
the first person : But it’s just because the aid (hasn’t been (was notgiven correctly, the directors of the park (have made) took bad décisions : they knew nothing of the animal life
the second person : But who can give a good help to the animals ? wild life is too complicated, no one can know in advance what actions will help the animals and (which)what will make them disapear faster.
the first person : Yes, there are experts for that but (it’s that) saving animals isn’t an easy task, there must (have) be good teams that will evaluate all the animals and their actions it'll be long! but it’s a good thing, after thèse animals will be saved !
the second person : So it will be very expensive ! all countries can’t pay all the (depenses for)expenses to preserve the wildlife parks, it’s really a waste of money while animals have always been able to take care of themselves.
the first person : yes but the animals are less able to protect themselves against their enemies and without our help they will disapear and countries are able to pay (very expensive) a lot of money to save these endangered animals, so why not do it ?
the second person : If these animals are no longer able to fend for themselves it’s because for many years there were (aid)helped and now they are (habituated) used to (this help) it. We need to stop (to) saving them and it will( help they better)be more helpful
ce qui est entre parenthèse est à supprimer.