Many people think that it is a waste of money to save animals of endangered species like the tiger or the blue whale.
Do you agree or disagree with this view?
A few members of society think that the attempt to conserve animals that are at the verge of extinction is a complete waste of money. However, I disagree with this belief because due to their absolute importance in the food chain and a fundamental right to live, it becomes crucial to try and save these endangered species.
Every being on this planet has a basic right to be alive and as the alpha species of the Earth, it is the moral responsibility of humans to do so. Moreover, when these endangered animal species are left under safe environment and observation, chances of their survival get multifold. This is to say that this special kind of assistance can only be provided by professionals and nobody else. Apart from that, it is now possible to create genetically improved animals so they would not have to face extinction. Due to such aforesaid reasons, it is justified to use money for the preservation of the endangered species.
Beside that, some animals are on the top of the food chain and are vital for ecological systems. For instance, a tiger feeds on deer, which eat grass or other vegetation. If tiger went extinct for some reason, the numbers of deer would boom and grasslands will suffer as a result of overgrazing. In other words, if the elite member of a habitat dies, other animals depended on that particular species would witness harsh consequences. Therefore, it is evident to support and save animals that are anticipated to disappear in the near future so that the environment and its other members can flourish peacefully.
In conclusion, a number of people believe that the conservation of animals that are endangered is wastage of public funds. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with this idea because animals are essential to our environment, and they have a right to be alive just like any human.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 13,886 4564
The prompt restatement should have integrated the animal examples from the original because these animals are expected to be a part of the reasoning paragraphs. These information were included as guides in the prompt because of its usefulness in the discussion part. You cannot selectively use an example in this case. You have to use both.
Reasoning paragraphs need to connecte cohesively throughout the presentation. These must focus on the same central topic otherwise, the presentation loses points in the C+C consideration. The second reasoning paragraph is not connected to the "waste of money" aspect as indicated. It will not receive a scoring consideration because it does not relate to the topic provided. Its word count will be deducted from the overall presentation, which will then fall short of the discussion requirement and more than likely, create a low or non passing final score for the essay.