Climate change or just dynamic weather? We need to find a way to live with it.

instead of preventing climate change, we need to find a way to live with it

In this contemporary society, issues regarding weather have been invariably arousing public concern, especially climate change. Consequently, there is a school of thought holding that in lieu of militating against climate change, it is more necessary to devise plans to coexist with it. Personally, I am convinced that there is no likelihood that this movement, which may bring human nothing other than more predicament for human , can be viable

In the first place, it is virtually impossible making an attempt to coexist with climate change by virtue of the fact that the power and influence of nature is formidably strong and ineluctably unpreventable . To clarify ,as a result of climate change,the globe has been progressively heating up, which in turn gives rise to a plethora of natural disasters taking its toll on human and many places. Tsunami is a case in point, which can drive human to the verge of death and clean up all existing creatures merely within a second. To that end, even the best-laid plans can hardly vouch for the safety of human when confronting the danger brought by tsunami.

In the second place, this movement can be financially disadvantageous in an extreme degree. Heretofore every activity of human race are inextricably entwined with weather, which can entail human a colossal amount of budget creating methods to adapt to the alteration of climate. For instance, farmers primarily pivots on favourable weather to have their crops producing the best outcomes, which can be impeded by interrupted period of drought if climate change occurs. Proving that farmers build enormous tanks to store water in advance, the supply can surely not be deployed in perpetuity, which is not only exorbitant but also results in a parlous state in terms of agricultural production for farmers in the future

In conclusion, coexisting with climate change, from which human can reap nothing, is totally unattainable. By contrast,if human take measures to ward off climate change in time, the reserve of the abovementioned movement can truly take place

You forgot to consider the main discussion requirement of this essay:To what extent do you agree or disagree? So your rambling response does not make any sense. You did not respond to the given discussion question. You did not offer a clear side to support in the discussion right off the bat. You are doing a comparative discussion in a single opinion essay. Wherever you read the word OR in the question being posed, that means you have to choose between the two sides and represent only one in the discussion. You cannot do a comparative discussion because that means you did not create a clear position based on the given topic for the discussion. That will result in a TA score of 3. Which will strongly pull down your final score. It will prevent you from achieving the 5 band score.

If you believe that the proposal is totally unattainable, then you should have said so in the paraphrase section by indicating something like: I strongly oppose the suggestion that we should learn to live with the uncontrollable changes to our weather patterns. Then, you should have gone on to discuss 2 reasons why you support that opinion.

The coherence and cohesiveness of your discussion is in the strength of your reasoning. The way that you connect 2 supporting statements to prove your point creates a connected (cohesive) discussion that, when read in combination, creates clarity (coherence) in your explanations pertaining to the side that you support. Without the connecting reasons, your discussion lacks the proper coherence and cohesiveness that would show that you have a clear understanding of the given prompt and discussion parameters.

@Holt thank you very much ! how about my idea and the ways i use vocab ? is there anything else i should rectify