Wild animals have no use in the 21 st century and trying to preserve animals now is just a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Sample Response
Many people believe that spending money and resources to save wild animals is a waste of budget as these animals have almost nothing to contribute to our progress and lifestyle. I totally disagree with this view and strongly suggest that we should try to save wild animals in every way possible.
It is a ridiculous idea that wild animals have no place in the world because we have entered the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for humans, and modernization means we need to be more selfish. I would rather say that the 21st century should be the right time to make planet Earth livable for all species. Letting wild animals get extinct would be one of the worst steps in human history, and if we do not take the initiatives to save those already endangered species, we would be destroying the bio-diversity of our planet which would ultimately harm us.
Moreover, we waste millions of dollars on recreational drugs, and I would say, this is a waste of money. Spending money and resources to protect wild animals is a prudent investment since scientists and ecologists agree that those habitats are important for human survival. For example, to preserve wild animals, we need to save the forests, plant more trees and stop exploiting nature. This, in turn, saves the human species from being endangered. Humans should maintain the balance of the ecosystem and invest money in protecting nature, and wild creatures are an important part of the balance of the environment.
To conclude, the planet is shared by all species and as the most intelligent species, as we claim ourselves to be, we need to have rather great responsibilities to protect wild animals for our own benefit.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Use allocation collocation Original: spending Suggested revision: allocating Why it matters: Resources are allocated to a purpose rather than spent in the same way as money.
- 2. Use natural expression Original: a waste of budget Suggested revision: a waste of public funds Why it matters: “Budget” names a spending plan, whereas funds are what can be wasted.
- 3. Use precise paired nouns Original: our progress and lifestyle Suggested revision: our development and way of life Why it matters: The replacement avoids the vague abstraction “progress” and the singular lifestyle generalization.
- 4. Use formal degree adverb Original: totally Suggested revision: completely Why it matters: “Completely” is more suitable than conversational “totally” in formal writing.
- 5. Use belief verb Original: strongly suggest that we should try to save Suggested revision: strongly believe that we should save Why it matters: “Suggest” does not naturally express the writer’s firm position in this structure.
- 6. Use concise scope phrase Original: in every way possible Suggested revision: wherever possible Why it matters: The replacement expresses practical scope more concisely.
- 7. Use measured evaluation Original: a ridiculous idea Suggested revision: an unreasonable claim Why it matters: The replacement maintains disagreement in a more appropriate academic register.
- 8. Signal alternative directly Original: I would rather say Suggested revision: Instead, I would argue Why it matters: The transition clearly introduces the writer’s preferred alternative view.
- 9. Use precise adjective Original: right Suggested revision: ideal Why it matters: “Ideal” expresses the proposed suitability of the period more directly.
- 10. Use formal adjective Original: livable Suggested revision: habitable Why it matters: “Habitable” is the conventional formal term for a place fit to live in.
- 11. Use a that-clause Original: I would say, this Suggested revision: I would say that this Why it matters: The reporting verb takes a that-clause without the interrupting comma.
- 12. Clarify possessive reference Original: those Suggested revision: their Why it matters: The possessive determiner links the habitats directly to wild animals.
Suggested Rewrites
- spending allocating
- a waste of budget a waste of public funds
- our progress and lifestyle our development and way of life
- totally completely
- strongly suggest that we should try to save strongly believe that we should save
- in every way possible wherever possible
Why this response received Band 7.0
The response maintains a clear disagreement and develops both an ethical case for sharing the planet and a practical case based on biodiversity, habitats, and human survival. Its main limitation is that the comparison with recreational-drug spending is tangential, while some ecological claims remain broad and repetitive. Prioritise a concrete example of one species or habitat whose preservation delivers measurable ecosystem benefits.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear position is supported by relevant ethical and ecological arguments, though some claims are broad and one spending comparison is tangential.
Replace the recreational-drug comparison with a specific conservation example showing the practical value of protecting wildlife.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay is logically paragraphed and moves clearly from ethical responsibility to ecological and human benefits.
Tighten the second body paragraph by removing the spending digression and ordering habitat protection before human consequences.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is sufficiently varied and topic-specific, with occasional awkward collocations and repeated environmental language.
Refine phrases such as 'waste of budget', 'get extinct', 'take the initiatives', and 'rather great responsibilities'.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A useful range of complex structures is generally controlled, with occasional article, phrasing, and punctuation lapses.
Simplify long conditional sentences and check article use and comma placement around inserted clauses.
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
Wild animals have no use in the 21 st century and trying to preserve animals now is just a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.