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?
Sample Response
The protection of wildlife has become a frequent subject of debate with strong arguments for and against. Personally, I believe that humans are paying too much attention and allocating too many resources to this issue, as will now be explained.
Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Some people may argue that the 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 the Earth, but merely triggered the 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 expending too much in the conservation of wild animals and birds. For example, more resources should be diverted to medical research to find 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 continuing campaigns to raise public awareness 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 threatening 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.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Complete paired expression Original: strong arguments for and against Suggested revision: strong arguments on both sides Why it matters: On both sides completes the comparison without leaving against without an object.
- 2. Use direct signposting Original: as will now be explained Suggested revision: for the following reasons Why it matters: This signpost connects the position directly to the reasons that follow.
- 3. Remove unnecessary article Original: the ecosystems Suggested revision: ecosystems Why it matters: The noun refers to ecosystems generally, so the definite article is unnecessary.
- 4. Use standard Earth phrase Original: on the Earth Suggested revision: on Earth Why it matters: Earth normally appears without an article in this fixed geographical expression.
- 5. Clarify comparison noun Original: the emergence of others such as mammals Suggested revision: the emergence of other groups, such as mammals Why it matters: Other groups supplies a clear noun for the comparison and identifies mammals accurately within the sentence.
- 6. Fix spending collocation Original: expending too much in the conservation Suggested revision: spending too much on the conservation Why it matters: Money is spent on an activity rather than expended in it in this construction.
- 7. Use research collocation Original: find out remedies Suggested revision: develop remedies Why it matters: Medical research develops remedies; find out does not collocate with remedies.
- 8. Use campaign collocation Original: continuing Suggested revision: running Why it matters: Governments run campaigns, while continuing here sounds imprecise because no earlier campaign has been identified.
- 9. Clarify awareness target Original: awareness of the protection of wildlife habitats Suggested revision: awareness of the need to protect wildlife habitats Why it matters: The revision states clearly what the public should become aware of.
- 10. Use concise harm verb Original: threatening the life of wild animals Suggested revision: endangering wild animals Why it matters: Endangering expresses the intended harm naturally and avoids the singular life with plural animals.
- 11. Sentence rewrite Original: Firstly, if we allow any species to disappear, this is actually not a disaster. Suggested revision: Firstly, allowing a species to disappear is not necessarily disastrous. Why it matters: The rewrite removes the weak pronoun reference and expresses the qualified claim more directly.
Suggested Rewrites
- strong arguments for and against strong arguments on both sides
- as will now be explained for the following reasons
- the ecosystems ecosystems
- on the Earth on Earth
- the emergence of others such as mammals the emergence of other groups, such as mammals
- expending too much in the conservation spending too much on the conservation
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.
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
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?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.