some people say it is acceptable to use animal for our benefit.Others say it is wrong to exploit them.Discuss both points of view and give your opinion
This response is estimated at Band 7.0. Can you write a better one?
Write yours and get clear feedback on all four criteria.
- Closest to official scores
- What to fix on each criterion
- Feedback in about 20 seconds · free
Sample Response
We cannot deny that humans exploit animals for their own benefit, which leads some to argue about whether this is justifiable.Different people hold divergent viewpoints, each with their own set of compelling reasons.
Proponents believebelieves it has a positive impact on the food supply and medical research. First, raising animals helps secureexploiting animals may obtain enough food resources such as meatmeats, eggs and dairy products. To elaborate, farmers who are skilled inwith livestock and poultry farming could reliablystably provide food resources to fulfill human requirements, safeguarding food security. Meanwhile, animals play a vital role in laboratories,particularly as test subjectsas a respondent to test the efficacyefficiency of newly developed medicines. Thus, by examining animals, researchers could refine drug formulationsmodify and optimize the production without sacrificing the effectiveness and safety concerns.As a result, animal participation contributes to better final products and is regarded as a cornerstone of progress.
Opponents argue these behaviours are morally wrong. Animals may confront intensive farming and cruel experimentsexperiment if humanshuman overexploit them.To be more specific, humans who have a surging demand forhuman who has a surging demand on meat and dairy products due to popularity of fine dining and various confectioneriessorts of desserts may compel animals to produce, leading to ignoring the living conditions and physical well-beingliving and health issues of animals. Simultaneously, to pursue maximum monetary profit, companies may test medicines on animals without safety consideration, which causesconsideration , which cause inevitable death.As a result, it seems detrimental actions towards animals.
Personally speaking, I contend that humanscontend human should leverage animals with defined boundaries and clear rules to protect animals' basic rights.For cruel experiments, humanshuman ought to explore alternative methods, for instance, testing using computer simulations that prevent animal fatalitiesin the computers until it will not cause death.
Why this response received Band 7.0
The essay effectively addresses both sides of the prompt and presents a clear, nuanced personal opinion in the conclusion. Ideas are logically structured across distinct paragraphs with appropriate cohesive devices, though grammatical accuracy varies across complex sentences. To raise the overall quality, focus on fixing agreement errors and refining word combinations for greater naturalness.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
You discuss both perspectives thoroughly and provide a clear, well-reasoned personal opinion on regulating animal use.
Elaborate slightly more on your personal opinion within the main body to strengthen your overall position throughout the essay.
Coherence and Cohesion
Paragraphing is logical and ideas progress smoothly with a good range of transition words.
Ensure cohesive linking words like 'simultaneously' or 'meanwhile' directly match the logical connection between consecutive sentences.
Lexical Resource
You use a varied and relevant vocabulary, including topics-specific terms like 'livestock', 'intensive farming', and 'food security'.
Refine word choices and phrasings to avoid slight inaccuracies, such as using 'respondents' for laboratory animals.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A good variety of complex sentence structures is attempted, though minor grammatical errors in subject-verb agreement and noun forms persist.
Proofread carefully to eliminate basic subject-verb agreement mistakes and missing plural endings.