Artificial environments. Positive and negative sides of zoos

Some people feel that it is always wrong to keep animals in captivity, for instance in zoos. Other people say that there are benefits for the animals and for humans. Discuss both sides and give your personal view.

zoos - fun for humans, harm for animals?

Zoos are still the artificial environments where people visit to undergo the feeling of being in the short-term contact with the wildlife. While some people argue that it is cruel to keep them in such captivities, however, I believe that, it is beneficial for both the animals and the humans.

On the one hand, zoos are considered as safe and peaceful places in some respects. In the wild, there are great probabilities that most animals can lose their natural habitat, or be killed by other animals. This is more beneficial particularly for endangered animals, which in turn can contribute to the ecosystem. Apart from this, as the natural places where animals can be very dangerous for the lives of human beings, most of us would not have the chance to encounter other living creatures without the presence of zoos.

On the other hand, there are many who doubt the wholesomeness of the existence of zoos. As living in the limited space, the animals can suffer mentally and physically. For example, repetitive disorders and eating disorders seem in the zoo animals more frequently. Apart from not being healthy, some argue that zoos are unethical as they do not have the right to exploiting animals with the intention of making money. They also suggest that the best way to saving endangered animals is protecting their natural habitats.

In conclusion, it seems to me that despite some negative sides, zoos have noticeable advantages for animals, as well as humans, as long as their rights and comforts are preserved.

Adam, you have to work on providing the complete prompt summary in overview form. That seems to be a regular problem in all of your essays. In this one, you neglected to present both points of view again, prior to presenting your opinion on the matter. While it is alright to stand in the middle this time, since you are not being asked to take one side in particular for the discussion, you still needed to represent both sides in the summary overview. The examiner doesn't need the definition of a zoo. What he needed to read, was how well you understood and could represent the prompt requirements in the essay opening statement. You have points lost for that.

Additional points were lost when you decided to make a misrepresentation of the pro and con discussion of the facts by making it appear that these opinions were your own. When you are asked to discuss both sides, you have to make sure that the readers know that you are representing a public opinion in the discussion first. Your personal opinion does not come until the second to the last paragraph of the essay.

Then, you lost more points because you decided to discuss your personal opinion on the given topic within the concluding paragraph. As a hard rule of academic writing, which is what the IELTS test is, no writer is allowed to present an opinion or additional information in the concluding paragraph. As the title of the paragraph indicates, it is the end (conclusion) of the discussion. Therefore, all of the facts and assertions have to be made in the earlier paragraphs. The concluding statement is a mere recap of all that was discussed and presented in the essay.

Based upon the problems that I observed within your response essay, I am confident that you would not be able to score higher than a 5 overall. The score was weighted down by the problems in task accuracy, which is a major factor in scoring these essays.

@adamrahimov
The paragraph that discusses was too short in my view. Merely stating that zoos have noticeable advantages does not sound convincing.

Hi @adamrahimov
Don't you think you need to switch the opinion paragraphs? It will flow better (even though it doesn't have to be always like that) since in the first paragraph you talk about the advantages of zoo, and in the second is the opposite, but in your conclusion you support the first paragraph.