Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given in the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree about this opinion?
This response is estimated at Band 7.5. 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
The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments on both sidesstrong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, for the following reasonsas will now be explained.
Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that ecosystemsthe ecosystems will be seriously affected if birds and wild animals are on the verge of extinction, but this is an exaggeration. Fossil evidence suggests that the mass disappearance of the dinosaurs did not cause any harm to other species on Earthon the Earth, but merely triggered the emergence of other groups, such as mammalsthe emergence of others such as mammals. Therefore, we should not devote too much attention to the protection of wildlife.
Secondly, public money is limited. So we should allocate our national budget to more urgent issues rather than spending too much on the conservationexpending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to develop remediesfind out remedies for fatal diseases such as HIV and cancer, which may help to save thousands of lives in society.
Finally, the government can simply protect wildlife by runningcontinuing campaigns to raise public awareness of the need to protect wildlife habitatsawareness of the protection of wildlife habitats or imposing stricter punishments on activities that may harm wild animals. Any individual who hunts wildlife for food or for pleasure should be given a heavy fine, and this may discourage them from endangering wild animalsthreatening the life of wild animals.
In conclusion, while I do not refute the argument for the conservation of wildlife, I believe that it should attract less attention and fewer resources from the public.
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response presents a clear position and organises three relevant reasons into a concise, coherent argument, with especially strong sentence control. Its main limitation is that some support is asserted too confidently or imprecisely, particularly the claim about extinction and ecosystems, while a few collocations are unnatural. The highest-priority improvement is to qualify that claim and explain its connection to present-day conservation spending more convincingly.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The position is clear and all main ideas are relevant and developed, though the extinction argument relies on an oversimplified example.
Use a more defensible example and explain more precisely why it shows that current conservation attention is excessive.
Coherence and Cohesion
The essay has clear progression and well-focused paragraphs, although the numbered signposting is somewhat mechanical.
Create smoother transitions by linking each new reason directly to the central claim instead of relying on sequence markers.
Lexical Resource
The response uses flexible topic vocabulary with generally precise meaning, but a few combinations such as expending in conservation are awkward.
Refine collocational accuracy by using forms such as spending on conservation and finding treatments for diseases.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide variety of complex sentence forms is handled accurately, with most sentences free of grammatical error.
Polish the few cumbersome constructions while retaining the strong variety of subordinate and relative clauses.