Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given to protect wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Response
It is often argued that protecting wild animals and birds receives disproportionate attention and resources compared to pressing human needs. While I understand that investing in wildlife conservation is necessary and beneficial, it is also important to ensure that this effort does not overshadow other urgent human needs.
Protecting wild animals and birds is a necessary investment for both nature and humanity. One reason is that preserving biodiversity is essential for maintaining ecological balance and environmental health. Each species, no matter how small, contributes to the stability of ecosystems by playing a specific role in natural processes. As a result, protecting wildlife helps to sustain clean air, fresh water, fertile soil, and interconnected food chains that humans also rely on. Another important point is that conservation reflects both a moral responsibility and a long-term benefit to future generations. By actively preserving endangered species, we ensure that the natural world remains intact and accessible for those who come after us. Therefore, environmental care is not just a matter of ethics, but also a step toward a more sustainable future.
However, other urgent needs deserve more focus and funding. The first notable concern is that social sectors such as education, healthcare, and poverty alleviation are often underfunded. These areas directly affect human well-being and development, yet they may receive less attention when resources are heavily directed toward wildlife protection. Excessive focus on animal conservation therefore can limit the support available for essential public services. Another issue is the potential inefficiency of some conservation projects. In certain cases, large sums of money are spent on protecting rare species that have minimal ecological impact. When this occurs, the funds may be viewed as symbolic rather than practical, producing little real-world benefit and leading to a misuse of limited resources.
In conclusion, although I believe that protecting wild animals and birds is a valuable and morally sound goal, it is also important to strike a balance by allocating resources judiciously across social and environmental priorities. By doing so, we can ensure that conservation efforts complement—rather than compete with—human development goals.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Clarify the benefit Original: necessary investment for both nature and humanity Suggested revision: necessary investment that benefits both nature and humanity Why it matters: The revision states more directly who benefits from the investment.
- 2. Use concise phrasing Original: by playing a specific role Suggested revision: through its specific role Why it matters: This phrasing expresses the same relationship more concisely.
- 3. Refine the relative clause Original: food chains that humans also rely on Suggested revision: food chains on which humans also rely Why it matters: The revised relative clause uses the preposition more precisely in formal writing.
- 4. Improve parallel structure Original: reflects both a moral responsibility and a long-term benefit Suggested revision: is both a moral responsibility and a source of long-term benefits Why it matters: The revision makes the two coordinated complements grammatically parallel.
- 5. Use concise wording Original: The first notable concern Suggested revision: A major concern Why it matters: This expresses the point more naturally and economically.
- 6. Choose an accurate category Original: sectors Suggested revision: priorities Why it matters: Poverty alleviation is more naturally described as a priority than as a sector.
- 7. Place the linker naturally Original: therefore can limit Suggested revision: can therefore limit Why it matters: Placing the conjunctive adverb after the modal creates a more natural flow.
- 8. Clarify the contrast Original: funds may be viewed as symbolic rather than practical Suggested revision: spending may be viewed as symbolic rather than effective Why it matters: Spending can be symbolic, and effective is the clearer contrast in this context.
- 9. Clarify the reference Original: this effort Suggested revision: this conservation work Why it matters: The explicit reference prevents effort from sounding vague.
- 10. Refine the transition Original: Another important point is that Suggested revision: A further consideration is that Why it matters: The revision signals an additional line of reasoning more precisely.
- 11. Choose precise wording Original: intact Suggested revision: protected Why it matters: Protected describes the intended outcome of conservation more precisely than intact.
- 12. Express balance precisely Original: other urgent needs deserve more focus and funding Suggested revision: other urgent needs also warrant attention and funding Why it matters: Also reinforces the balanced allocation argument without implying that conservation deserves no support.
Suggested Rewrites
- necessary investment for both nature and humanity necessary investment that benefits both nature and humanity
- by playing a specific role through its specific role
- food chains that humans also rely on food chains on which humans also rely
- reflects both a moral responsibility and a long-term benefit is both a moral responsibility and a source of long-term benefits
- The first notable concern A major concern
- sectors priorities
Why this response received Band 8.0
The response is strongest in its balanced, well-organised development of both the ecological case for conservation and the competing claims of essential public services. Its main limitation is that some supporting claims, especially the suggestion that rare species may have little ecological value, are broad and insufficiently qualified; the highest-priority improvement is to use a more concrete, carefully framed example to substantiate the resource-allocation argument.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
A clear, nuanced position is maintained and both sides of the resource-allocation issue are developed with relevant reasoning.
Strengthen the argument about inefficient conservation spending with a specific, credible example and more careful qualification.
Coherence and Cohesion
Ideas progress logically through a clear introduction, two focused body paragraphs, and a conclusion that consistently reflects the argument.
Make the internal transitions slightly less formulaic so the supporting points connect more organically.
Lexical Resource
A wide and precise vocabulary supports sophisticated discussion of ecological, ethical, and social priorities with strong control.
Refine broad phrases such as minimal ecological impact to express contentious claims with greater precision.
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A broad range of complex structures is used accurately, with clear control of clauses, punctuation, and agreement.
Continue refining sentence rhythm by varying the placement and form of longer subordinate 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
Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given to protect wild animals and birds. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.