There are many animal species close to endangered. Some say that only animals that are beneficial to people should be protected. Do you agree or disagree?
Animal is real substantial element for human beings. Over recent years, more funds have been allocated to save the threatened animals, although some people claim that only of those give advantageous to human life. Therefore, I argue that only beneficial animal should be considered to be saved.
To support that agreement, several explanations have been gained. First and foremost, saving all the world's endangered animal will cost a great amount of money. In other side, many people are starving or suffering hazardous disease in many parts of world that need to support by expenditure. According to news from The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the study in 2012 envisaged that preserving threatened land animals would cost $76 billion or around £49 billion a year, while it would cost more if our targets are entire marine species. Moreover, it is a fact that extinction is a natural process. Before human existed in the earth, several mass extinctions had occurred. The viable example can be seen from the extinction of dinosaurs. It is estimated that around 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs vanished without any intervention from human.
However, some people disagree about that statement. They argue that the most obvious reason is about ecological value. In human-social science, we learn that human is social creature. As like human, individual plant and animal cannot live by itself. Each animal depends on other animal or plant, and vice versa. One animal or plant extinction can disturb other organisms that interact with it. For instance, based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the disappearance of one plant or animal can tend to the vanishment of 30 other creatures.
To sum up, it is evident that saving endangered animals cost a great amount of money. Although some people think preserving all threatened animals is a must, it is proofed that only animal which can give beneficial to human life should be saved.
Hi Mahdi, here's my analysis towards your essay.
1st paragraph (introduction paragraph):
- ...more funds have been allocated to save the threatened animals although some people claim that only of those give advantageous to human life. (if the position of "although" is in the middle, it is not necessary to give comma)
- Therefore, I argue that only beneficial animal should be considered to be saved. (where's your stance? if the prompt asks you to choose whether agree or disagree, you need to mention it clearly if you want to reach band 6 or above)
4th paragraph (concluding paragraph):
- ...it is evident that saving endangered animals cost a great amount of money. (this should be the paraphrase of your thesis statement in the introduction paragraph)
- Although some people think ................. human life should be saved. (it seems that you've only restated the prompt. No need to say "some people" again. You can just say "I recommend/suggest/hope that..." related to the future.
As you can see Mahdi, introduction and conclusion are one of the most essential parts in IELTS writing. If you want to reach a high band score, try to take a closer look and pay more attention to them. If you've successfully created a well-written introduction and conclusion, try to create a well-developed body paragraph. I hope you can follow through. Do not hesitate to ask if you need further assistance :)