Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals and that this money could be better spent on the human population.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
In retrospect, many schools of thought have contended that humans should have diverted their money to their population rather than the preservation of wildlife. However, from my stance, I would never concur with the statement for two main reasons, as humans and their surroundings have linked inseparably. I am going to illuminate my point of view below.
Chief among the reasons is the inseparable link between humans and wildlife, it is recently recorded that the ecosystem has lapsed into imbalance, which factored in the increase of endangered species. As a rule of thumb, the existence of the civilization would be gravely threatened if the extinction rate of animals continues accelerating. A strong example is The African government has recorded myriads of illegal hunting of Sumatran elephants each year, which has rung an alarming bell for their existence and the efficiency of preservation policies. If it is not stopped promptly, not only will the ecology suffer, but the forest's biodiversity will suffer as well. Furthermore, preserving wildlife is equivalent to protecting ourselves, if one side lapses into collapse, it would instigate a domino effect on the left, effectively afflicting human survival on Earth.
Enhancing the case, to a greater extent, protecting wild animals would also engender economic levers for the masses, thanks to their attraction to people. Predicating to data from the Texas National Parks and Wildlife Service, the percentage of bird-watching has increased considerably in recent years, which estimated that more than 50 billion dollars are spent on bird watching activities, and north of 90 billion dollars benefited from wild tourism in 2001.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that it is worth continuing to spend money and make a concerted effort to protect wild animals because of the enormous advantages that wild animals bring to humans.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 13,876 4563
It is incorrect for the writer to refer to the idea presented "in restrospect" because the idea is not a past presentation. Rather, it is a continuing school of thought that applies to this very day. by saying "in retrospect", the writer is changing the timeline of the discussion from present to past. This changes the importance of the discussion topic and also, redirects the original sentiment of the discussion. Unless otherwise specified, the writer must always refer to all given thoughts, ideas, and opinions in the present form.
There was also no need to use the word "However" in the presentation. The adverb was used incorrectly in this sentence because it failed to properly present a measured extent in the sentence. This word applies more to monetary expense references rather than emotional measurements. So the writer had the right idea, but an incorrect word application due to the actual meaning and usage of the word.
The writer is fond of using noun phrases in the essay. The problem is that the application is incorrect, thus making the essay difficult to understand for the native English user. He is trying to impress the examiner using his vocabulary but failing to do so due to his inadequate English word and phrase usage knowledge. He is familiar with the words and phrases, but unfamiliar with the meaning and correct method of using these terminologies.