Проверьте меня, плиzzz

[Пельмень]

[sledopyt]

One of the most wildly discussed TOPICS problems is WHETHER : if zoos should exist at all and if it’s good to keep animals in captivity. This ISSUE problem is being MORE discussed in Europe and in THE USA than IT IS in Russia. Nowadays, there are a lot of debates in Mass-media LEADS THE WAY IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.
On THE one hand, critics say that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals AND Also because animals in zoos are deprived of theIR natural HABITAT environment than if they are in the wild. Protesters say that it is cruel to keep poor animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions.
On the other hand, there are some opinions in defense of zoos. First, because it’s a good THEY HAVE entertainment VALUE. In zoos we can LIVE THE experiENCE OF BEING CLOSE the to animals at close quarters. (or SEE THE ANIMALS AT A CLOSE DISTANCE). Zoos have educational and scientifical value as well. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then released to the wild. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIDES TO ZOOS. In defense of zoos we can say that they are different. On THE one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cageS where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin Zoos with someMULTI-million-dollar a year budgetS, NUMEROUS big stuff, and conservation projects all over the world. While critising zoos, protesters ARE NOT ALWAYS RIGHT usually make mistakes. Very often their perception is NOT based on FACTS ignorance.
AT THE SAME TIME, nature DOCUMENTARIES films often show ANIMALS IN peaceful settings of animals and hardly ever the darker side of life in the wild. For example, the lingering deaths from diseases, starvation, inept predators, OR HUMAN EXPANSION INTO THEIR HABITAT.
One moreANOTHER common mistake made by THE critics OF THE ZOOS is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, WITH NO HUMAN INTERVENTION are defected by human. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, being a THE natural HABITAT environment for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas species just have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the VERGE stage of extinction.
Safari parks could be A good alternative to zoos. IN SAFARI PARKS, HUMANS AND ANIMALS CHANGE ROLES, For it another way round, NOW it’s THE people who are in cages, while animals move freely WANDER AROUND about. But the freedom is quite deceptive, because the animals are often rounded up and forced back into the open, so the visitors could get their money's worth. Many safari parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there.
In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of having educational value not only for us but for our children in the first place, SO THAT they CAN able to see animals that in other case OTHERWISE they would have see only on TV or encyclopediAs.

[Пельмень]

Тогда, может подскажете ссылку в инете, где есть хороший топик на эту тему "Зоопарки (их преимущества и недостатки)"

[Пельмень]

sledopyt, Вы мой спаситель, всегда выручаете меня, что бы я без Вас делал! Огромнейшее преогромнейшее Вам спасибо!!!

[sledopyt]

должны будете, Пельмень!

[Пельмень]

sledopyt, а как же, договорились!

[Пельмень]

Я здесь немножко "украшательством" позанимался, и вот Ваше творение:

One of the wildly discussed topics is whether zoos should exist and if it’s good to keep animals in captivity. This issue is being more discussed in Europe and in the USA than it is in Russia. Mass-media leads the way in these discussions.
On the one hand, critics say that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals and because animals in zoos are deprived of their natural habitat. Protesters say that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions.
On the other hand, there are some opinions in defense of zoos. First, because they have entertainment value. In zoos we can live the experience of being close to animals. (or see the animals at a close distance). Zoos have educational and scientific value as well. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then released to the wild. In other words, there are different sides to zoos. On the one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cages where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin Zoos with multi-million-dollar budgets, numerous stuff, and conservation projects all over the world. While critising zoos, protesters are not always right. Very often their perception is not based on facts.
At the same time, nature documentaries often show animals in peaceful settings and hardly ever the darker side of life in the wild. For example, the lingering deaths from diseases, starvation, inept predators, or human expansion into their habitat.
Another common mistake made by the critics of the zoos is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, with no human intervention. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, the natural habitat for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas species just have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the verge of extinction.
Safari parks could be a good alternative to zoos. In safari parks, humans and animals change roles, now it’s the people who are in cages, while animals freely wander around. But the freedom is quite deceptive, because the animals are often rounded up and forced back into the open, so the visitors could get their money's worth. Many safari parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there.
In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of having educational value not only for us but for our children in the first place, so that they can see animals that otherwise they would see only on TV or encyclopedias.

Ещё раз огромное спасибо!

[sledopyt]

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED whether OR NOT zoos should exist and if it’s RIGHT to keep animals in captivity. This issue is being discussed in Europe and NORTH AMERICA AND LESS SO in Russia. Mass-media leads the way in these discussions.
On the one hand, critics ARGUE that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals and DEPRIVE THEM of their natural habitat. Protesters say that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions.
On the other hand, there are some opinions in FAVOUR of zoos. First, because they have entertainment value. In zoos we can live the experience of THE PROXIMITY to animals. BESIDES, zoos have educational and scientific value. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then released to the wild. In other words, there are different sides to zoos. On the one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cages where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin Zoos with multi-million-dollar budgets, numerous stuff, and conservation projects all over the world. THEREFORE, WHEN criticising zoos, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS are not always right. Very often their perception is not based on facts.
At the same time, nature documentaries often show animals in peaceful settings and hardly ever THEY DEAL WITH the darker side of the life of ANIMALS in the wild, THE LIFE, WHICH IS OFTEN FILLED WITH the lingering death from diseases, starvation, predators, or human expansion into their habitat.
Another common mistake made by the critics of the zoos is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, with no human intervention. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, the natural habitat for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas MANY species have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the verge of extinction.
Safari parks could be a good alternative to zoos. In safari parks, humans and animals change roles, now it’s the people who are in cages, while THE animals freely wander around. But the freedom is quite deceptive, because the animals are often forced back into the open, so the visitors could get their money's worth. Many safari parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there.
In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of THEIR educational value, not only for us but PRIMARILY for our children, so that they can GET TO KNOW THE animals that they otherwise would see only on TV or IN encyclopedias.

[Пельмень]

Ой, а этот текст более правильный, так ведь?
Спасибо, что уделили мне время!

[sledopyt]

Править можно до бесконечности, но нужно где-то ставить точку.
Удачи!

[Пельмень]

"Попробую поймать её за хвост"!
Спасибо!

[Cutie]

а я могу поспорить, что сейчас on the one hand не используется, три года общения с англоговорящими и ни разу ни слышала. То что есть мои ошибки да согласна не углядела может что просто хотелось скорей помочь на работе время выдалось.

[Аристарх]

**три года общения с англоговорящими и ни разу ни слышала**

Странные какие-то у Вас "англоговорящие".

Вот пожалуйста. Статья американского журналиста. Обратите внимание не 20-й абзац сверху.

[Аристарх]

http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/opinion.xml?lang=en&nic=opinion&pid=1127

[Аристарх]

Еще можете сюда зайти

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="on+the+one+hand"+site:.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr=countryUK|countryGB

[langkawi2006]

Cutie, поспорить-то Вы можете, безусловно, но будете неправы :-)))
http://www.tolearnenglish.com/exercises/exercise-english-2/exercise-english-1544.php

[Cutie]

оk оk my bad, but they definitely use on one hand too
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+one+hand
found this site
so, sorry for confusing you guys
I asked them and they said that in speech they use on one hand whereas in writing they do use on the one hand