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?
Sample Response
Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because we humans have no need for them. I completely disagree with this point of view.
In my opinion, it is absurd to argue that wild animals have no place in the 21st century. I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures the survival of wild animals, and most scientists agree that these habitats are also crucial for human survival. For example, rainforests produce oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide and stabilise the Earth’s climate. If we destroyed these areas, the costs of managing the resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.
In conclusion, we have no right to decide whether or not wild animals should exist, and I believe that we should do everything we can to protect them.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Make phrasing concise Original: spend money on the protection of Suggested revision: spend money protecting Why it matters: The gerund form expresses the same idea more directly.
- 2. Remove redundancy Original: we humans Suggested revision: humans Why it matters: The pronoun is unnecessary because 'humans' already identifies the group.
- 3. Use concise structure Original: there is no compelling reason why we should Suggested revision: there is no compelling reason to Why it matters: The infinitive construction is more concise while preserving the claim.
- 4. Reduce intensification Original: every last square metre Suggested revision: every square metre Why it matters: Removing 'last' keeps the emphasis while making the academic tone more restrained.
- 5. Use concise wording Original: side by side with Suggested revision: alongside Why it matters: 'Alongside' conveys coexistence more concisely.
- 6. Clarify reference Original: this Suggested revision: coexistence Why it matters: Naming 'coexistence' makes the reference clearer than the pronoun 'this'.
- 7. Simplify cleft structure Original: It is usually the protection of natural habitats that ensures Suggested revision: Protecting natural habitats usually ensures Why it matters: The active gerund structure is clearer and less cumbersome.
- 8. Use precise wording Original: the resulting changes to our planet Suggested revision: the resulting environmental changes Why it matters: 'Environmental changes' identifies the type of consequences more precisely.
- 9. Qualify the claim Original: we maintain Suggested revision: we help maintain Why it matters: Adding 'help' gives the causal claim an appropriately measured form.
- 10. Sentence rewrite Original: I do not believe that planet Earth exists only for the benefit of humans, and there is nothing special about this particular century that means that we suddenly have the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Suggested revision: I do not believe that Earth exists solely for humans, and nothing about this particular century gives us the right to allow or encourage the extinction of any species. Why it matters: The revision removes repeated clause framing and makes the long sentence easier to follow.
- 11. Signal argument shift Suggested revision: Organise the moral case first, then clearly signal the shift to the practical point about sharing land with wildlife. Why it matters: A clearer transition between the two lines of reasoning would strengthen progression within the paragraph.
Suggested Rewrites
- spend money on the protection of spend money protecting
- we humans humans
- there is no compelling reason why we should there is no compelling reason to
- every last square metre every square metre
- side by side with alongside
- this coexistence
Why this response received Band 9.0
The response is exceptionally direct and persuasive, sustaining a fully clear position through two distinct, thoroughly developed arguments. Its organization and language are precise and natural, with no meaningful weakness affecting communication or task fulfilment. The most useful refinement would be to add slightly more nuance to the ethical claim while preserving the essay's concision, balance, and strong progression.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position is fully developed through relevant ethical and practical arguments supported by specific, convincing explanation.
For further sophistication, briefly acknowledge a realistic competing resource priority before reaffirming the conclusion.
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing, sequencing, referencing, and transitions create effortless progression from the position to each supporting argument.
Maintain this disciplined structure while experimenting with an equally concise concession where appropriate.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is wide, precise, natural, and consistently well controlled across both abstract and concrete discussion.
Continue prioritizing exact, idiomatic wording and avoid adding complexity that would weaken the present clarity.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A full range of sentence structures is used accurately and flexibly, with punctuation consistently supporting meaning.
Preserve this level of control when incorporating any additional concessive or conditional structures.
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 place in the 21st century, so protecting them is a waste of resources. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.