Antarctica and fuels, TOEFL PRACTICE, integrated writting task #2

The author of the reading and the lecturer present opposed opposing points of view with respect to the hypothetical possibility of extracting oil and gas from the Antarctica. While the passage states that it is a difficult but worthy solution for the growing population, the professor considers that nothing can be worthy enough to put that beautiful environment under risk. Therefore, other possibilities must be considered.

Is the professor and lecturer the same person? You should say so in the text to avoid confusion.

According to the passage, economic and military activities are now prohibited and fishing and tourism are regulated by the consensus of 1991. The author considers the regulation a decision made by a small elite group, which should be reviewed given the future demands of the increasing global population. On the other hand, the lecturer regards the treaty as a smart pact made by scientists and government representatives from all over the world, because for her this problem should be kept out of away from financial interests, as it would be the case for big multinational corporations.

"Kept out of financial interests" means you don't want the problem to affect corporations (which obviously is not the case). "Kept away from financial interests" means you don't want financial interests to influence the problem.

In the reading it is pointed out that life is found only in limited regions of the Antarctica, and that even thought it is a hazardous work to extract and transport gas and oil from the Antarctica, we are know how to extracting extract these fuels from other places we once thought were too risky to try it, like Alaska and the North Sea. However, the professor, who has been in Antarctica before, says that the conditions there are not comparable to those of Alaska, that the conditions are very harsh and that the shipping of the fuels would be done the fuels would be shipped through inhabited places. For her, this beautiful but delicate place shouldn't be exposed to that danger, no matter what.

You could also say "even though it is a hazardous job." The correction I made to "the shipping of the fuels" is an improvement (the original words do not sound very active).

All in all, the author considers this a very profitable and prospering option, while the professor would never risk the environment of Antarctica and proposes to study alternative sources of energy instead, like hydrogen Hydrogen.

"Opposing" is different from "opposed."

"Put under risk that beautiful environment" is correct but awkward.

"Economic" and "economical" are different. Economical is cheap or inexpensive. Economic is relating to money or monetary gains. "Economic activities" would be extracting of oil and gas.

The logic of the essay is very good.

Continents do not have articles in front of them. Elements are not capitalized.