Some people think that keeping pets is good for children while others think it is dangerous and unhealthy for them. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion?
Sample Response
Some individuals support keeping pets around young children as they think it is beneficial while others oppose the idea citing pet-related injuries and fatalities in recent times. In this essay, I shall discuss both these views and argue that dangers that stem from young children having pets are overemphasised, sometimes even exaggerated, and children receive substantive psychological benefits from having pets.
Those who believe that keeping pets could be unhealthful and hazardous for children say that many pets are wild in nature and can hurt children. So, they believe that such pets could be a physical danger to children. For instance, allowing a child to play with a raccoon, snake, fox or bobcat could be dangerous as those pets are wild and often behave unpredictably. Moreover, friendly cats and dogs can be infected with viruses and can spread dangerous diseases to children. So this group of people recommend not allowing pets to young children considering their health and safety.
On the contrary, others who support allowing pets to young children say that it has favourable effects on children's psychology and growth. Young pet owners frequently empathise with their pets and perform a diverse range of activities to maintain their well-being. The Cambridge Developmental Psychology Unit found that children who had grown up with pets were 30% less likely to bully others and show aggression. Pets are also conducive to young children's mental growth, and they get involved in interesting activities with their pets that help them realise empathy more deeply. So, my opinion on that matter is that a child’s prosociality and mental health can be improved through exposure to pets.
In conclusion, letting young children possess and interact with friendly pets has important benefits. It is not a threat to children, but rather beneficial to nurture some important good qualities in them. So, it is expected that parents who wish to have pets for their children would consider those benefits and finally select one of the friendly pets for their children.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Correct the construction Original: recommend not allowing pets to young children Suggested revision: recommend not allowing young children to keep pets Why it matters: The original complement incorrectly presents pets as something allowed to children.
- 2. Correct the complement Original: allowing pets to young children Suggested revision: allowing young children to keep pets Why it matters: The revised construction clearly identifies the children as the pet owners.
- 3. Correct the collocation Original: realise empathy more deeply Suggested revision: develop a deeper sense of empathy Why it matters: English normally describes empathy as something people develop rather than realise deeply.
- 4. Correct the pattern Original: beneficial to nurture Suggested revision: beneficial for nurturing Why it matters: Beneficial for correctly introduces the activity that receives the benefit.
- 5. More natural phrasing Original: around young children Suggested revision: for young children Why it matters: This preposition expresses the intended beneficiary more naturally.
- 6. Clarify the reference Original: it is beneficial Suggested revision: doing so is beneficial Why it matters: The revision makes the reference to keeping pets explicit.
- 7. Tighten the phrase Original: fatalities in recent times Suggested revision: recent fatalities Why it matters: The shorter phrase conveys the same time reference more directly.
- 8. Use concise wording Original: dangers that stem from young children having pets Suggested revision: the dangers of young children having pets Why it matters: The revision removes an unnecessarily wordy relative construction.
- 9. Use common wording Original: unhealthful Suggested revision: unhealthy Why it matters: This is the more usual adjective in this context.
- 10. Use a direct verb Original: could be a physical danger to children Suggested revision: could endanger children Why it matters: The direct verb makes the claim more concise.
- 11. Vary the progression Suggested revision: Replace the repeated 'So' transitions with links that show how each safety concern supports the paragraph's main claim. Why it matters: More specific links would make the reasoning progress rather than sound like a list.
- 12. Group related risks Suggested revision: Keep the wild-animal examples together, then transition clearly to the separate issue of disease transmission. Why it matters: Separating the two types of risk would strengthen the paragraph's internal organisation.
Suggested Rewrites
- recommend not allowing pets to young children recommend not allowing young children to keep pets
- allowing pets to young children allowing young children to keep pets
- realise empathy more deeply develop a deeper sense of empathy
- beneficial to nurture beneficial for nurturing
- around young children for young children
- it is beneficial doing so is beneficial
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response presents a clear, consistent position and develops both perspectives through relevant explanations and examples, with particularly effective discussion of children’s psychological growth. Its main limitation is that the risk argument relies heavily on unusual wild-animal examples and the conclusion overstates safety rather than preserving the earlier nuance. Strengthen the less-favoured view with more representative evidence and qualify the final judgement.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Detailed feedback by IELTS writing criterion after the annotated essay.
Task Response
Both views are addressed and the writer’s position is clear throughout, with relevant development on risks and psychological benefits.
Develop the opposing view with more typical household-pet risks and retain a qualified position in the conclusion.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay progresses logically through a clear four-paragraph structure, and ideas within paragraphs are easy to follow.
Use a wider range of less conspicuous transitions instead of repeatedly opening or closing points with simple connectors such as ‘So’.
Lexical Resource
A wide and generally precise vocabulary supports nuanced discussion, although a few combinations such as ‘realise empathy’ sound unnatural.
Refine collocations for psychological development and pet ownership so that sophisticated vocabulary remains consistently natural.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A varied range of complex structures is handled with strong control, and the few grammatical slips do not impede meaning.
Check pronoun reference, agreement and clause structure in longer sentences to remove the remaining local inaccuracies.