please help me with the IELTS essay 2
Q: Too much attention is paid to and too much money is spent on keeping pets, while people throughout the world are starving.
To what extent do you agree?
A: Some people argue that the attention and money spent on pets are a waste of money and this can be diverted to stop starvation in the third world countries. However, others believe that leading a luxurious life spending more on pets is a privilege of the well-off community. Considering the two aspects, I conclude that, both arguments carry the same amount of gravity.
First of all, pets not only share life with people but also help the people, for instance, the life of the elderly living alone is safeguarded. Nowadays, pets are trained to guide their deaf or blind masters, to smell people to identify when they are sick or in danger and to provide safety in farmlands. In addition, in a broader perspective, animals are used in the police in order to catch the offenders. Similarly, they can be used to rescue those who are lost in the snow or deserts. Therefore pets are used successfully in both domestic and community based services.
When the counter argument is taken into account, a huge sum of money is allocated for pets in bringing up, treatment and training purposes. It is worthwhile assessing to what extent it is ethical to keep people starved, reserving money for the maintenance of pets. It is not only the adults, but also the children are dying in significant numbers due to lack of money to spend on food. In addition, Poor immunity, lack of energy and poor working performance carry an extra burden to the existing problem. Based on these factors money can be re allocated to prevent starvation in developing countries.
In conclusion, these arguments point out two different scenarios. Nevertheless, there should be a balance in spending and the excess money has to be kept for the benefit of the entire mankind.
Q: Too much attention is paid to and too much money is spent on keeping pets, while people throughout the world are starving.
To what extent do you agree?
A: Some people argue that the attention and money spent on pets are a waste of money and this can be diverted to stop starvation in the third world countries. However, others believe that leading a luxurious life spending more on pets is a privilege of the well-off community. Considering the two aspects, I conclude that, both arguments carry the same amount of gravity.
First of all, pets not only share life with people but also help the people, for instance, the life of the elderly living alone is safeguarded. Nowadays, pets are trained to guide their deaf or blind masters, to smell people to identify when they are sick or in danger and to provide safety in farmlands. In addition, in a broader perspective, animals are used in the police in order to catch the offenders. Similarly, they can be used to rescue those who are lost in the snow or deserts. Therefore pets are used successfully in both domestic and community based services.
When the counter argument is taken into account, a huge sum of money is allocated for pets in bringing up, treatment and training purposes. It is worthwhile assessing to what extent it is ethical to keep people starved, reserving money for the maintenance of pets. It is not only the adults, but also the children are dying in significant numbers due to lack of money to spend on food. In addition, Poor immunity, lack of energy and poor working performance carry an extra burden to the existing problem. Based on these factors money can be re allocated to prevent starvation in developing countries.
In conclusion, these arguments point out two different scenarios. Nevertheless, there should be a balance in spending and the excess money has to be kept for the benefit of the entire mankind.
