PROTECTING WILD ANIMALS
Topic: Wild animals have no place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Some people believe the idea that it is pointless to spend money on protecting wild animals because it doesn't give us any benefits. To me, I completely disagree with this point of view.
From my perspective, it is unreasonable to say that wild animal has no place in the 21st century. I completely do not agree that the planet Earth was created only for the benefits of humans, and it is absurd to allow the extinction of any species in the world. Overmore, there is no certain reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to destroy every square metre of land in order to feed or satisfy us; there are many other possible solutions to exists side by side with wild animals - this is our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting wild animals wastes lots of resources. It is the protection of natural habitats and ensures the wild animals' survival. Furthermore, many scientists agree that nature has very important standing in human life. For example, forests produce oxygen, stabilizing the Earth's climate. If we destroy these lands, the costs that we will receive is very sky-high! No oxygen. No stable climate. We can not keep humans survive safely. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we would maintain the survival of all life on Earth.
In a nutshell, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I strongly believe that we should do everything we can to protect the wild animals and their habitats.
Please help me with my writing because I really want to improve my writing skill. My aim is 6.5 since I need it for my study, I think. If you can, please also give me a score to know my ability in IELTS.
Thank you very much!
Holt Educational Consultant - / 11,940 3851
Please contact us privately for scoring services. Student Scoring = Ban !
Your prompt restatement is totally incorrect. It does not refer to the information from the original prompt. You should have written this in a manner similar to the following:
There is an idea that free roaming animals have no relevance in the new millenia. Therefore, animal conservation in this instance is an inappropriate use of reserves. I completely disagree with this point of view owing to the reason that....
The second reasoning paragraph is more concise and coherent when compared to the first reasoning paragraph. The problem with the first reasoning paragraph is that you focused on the reasons, but neglected to develop the explanations. Which is why the 2 reasons did not nothing but present an under develop, non-cohesive, and little coherent explanation for the reasons. It is a paragraph that does not work to help your score because it lacks clarity.
Thank you very much for your support! I will improve my IELTS writing skill with your feedback!
Hi! I would like to have some feedbacks on your writing.
1/ You should never write about others' opinion in an opinion essay: "Furthermore,
many scientists agree that nature has ...". In doing so, you are at risk of giving an irrelevant response to the prompt. You had better change it into something like: "Furthermore, I also believe that nature has a very important standing in human life."
2/ You should avoid sentences like this: "
No oxygen. No stable climate." if you would like to improve your C&C score. It should have been: "Destroying these lands will have a huge negative impact on the natural environment, as it would be very likely to result in a lack of oxygen and climate instability."
3/ This is an formal essay and an exclamation mark (!) should not be used.