A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Sample Response
The animal right has been a controversial issue ever since the dawn of industrialisation. Some argue that animals deserve to be treated the same way as humans, while others contend that humans must employ animals to fulfil their numerous needs. Both points of views will be analysed in this essay before a reasoned conclusion is drawn.
On the one hand, fair treatment of animals appears to be the moral thing to do. For example, animal rights activists groups have repeatedly performed studies that demonstrate that animals, when subjected to macabre conditions of slaughterhouses and laboratories, feel the pain in the same manner as human beings. Since most humans would never support the idea of inflicting such pain on their fellow human beings, it is only fair that animals should also be spared from this torment. When looking at this side of the argument, it is obvious why some support this stance.
On the other hand, many people opine that animals should be exploited in order to fulfil a number of human needs including food and research activities. Take pharmaceutical industry, for example, if humans stop testing drugs on animals to ensure their safety for subsequent human use, fatal damage could be caused to human beings as a result of using unsafe medicines. As without such medicines, the life expectancy of humans can fall dramatically, it is understandable why this point of view has garnered support.
Although both sides of this argument have indisputable virtues, it is felt that animal exploitation should only be upheld for medical research purposes. It is hoped, that animal sufferings in the laboratories will be minimised in the future.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use plural rights Original: The animal right Suggested revision: Animal rights Why it matters: The established topic is the plural concept “animal rights,” without an article.
- 2. Fix fixed expression Original: views Suggested revision: view Why it matters: In the fixed plural expression, only “points” changes number.
- 3. Use research collocation Original: performed Suggested revision: conducted Why it matters: Researchers conduct studies rather than perform them.
- 4. Fix location phrase Original: of Suggested revision: in Why it matters: The conditions occur “in” these locations rather than belonging “of” them.
- 5. Remove unnecessary article Original: feel the pain Suggested revision: feel pain Why it matters: “Pain” is uncountable when referring to the general sensation.
- 6. Use concise comparison Original: manner Suggested revision: way Why it matters: “In the same way as” is the natural comparative phrase here.
- 7. Use natural people term Original: humans Suggested revision: people Why it matters: “People” is more natural when discussing human moral choices.
- 8. Avoid repeated human Original: their fellow human beings Suggested revision: other people Why it matters: The replacement avoids repeating “human” in the same sentence.
- 9. Use concise purpose phrase Original: in order to fulfil Suggested revision: to fulfil Why it matters: “To” alone expresses purpose clearly here.
- 10. Add listing comma Original: human needs including food Suggested revision: human needs, including food Why it matters: A comma should introduce the supplementary examples following “including.”
- 11. Use argument terminology Original: indisputable virtues Suggested revision: valid arguments Why it matters: Views in a debate have arguments or merits rather than “virtues.”
- 12. Remove incorrect comma Original: It is hoped, that Suggested revision: It is hoped that Why it matters: No comma separates the reporting phrase from its that-clause.
Suggested Rewrites
- The animal right Animal rights
- views view
- performed conducted
- of in
- feel the pain feel pain
- manner way
Why this response received Band 7.0
The essay’s strongest feature is its clear ethical contrast, supported by a relevant explanation of why medical research may justify limited animal use. Its main limitation is that the qualified position appears only in the conclusion, leaving the writer’s stance on food and other forms of exploitation underexplained. Prioritise stating the nuanced thesis in the introduction and developing the principle that distinguishes essential medical testing from unacceptable uses.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response explores both perspectives and reaches a clear qualified conclusion, but the precise position is delayed and its implications for non-medical uses are not fully developed.
State from the outset that only essential medical research is justified, then explain explicitly why food or other exploitation does not meet the same threshold.
Coherence and Cohesion
The four-paragraph structure creates a clear progression from opposing views to a conclusion, although some signposting is formulaic and one example sentence is overloaded.
Divide the pharmaceutical example into shorter logical steps so the relationship between testing, safety, and human health is easier to follow.
Lexical Resource
The response uses a good range of topic-specific and less common vocabulary, though occasional inaccurate forms and overstrong word choices reduce precision.
Use natural forms such as “animal rights activist groups,” “suffering,” and “unsafe medicines can seriously harm people.”
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A variety of complex structures is used with generally good control, but errors in plurals, articles, punctuation, and clause construction remain noticeable.
Revise the pharmaceutical example to avoid the comma splice and correct phrases such as “points of view” and “the pharmaceutical industry.”
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.