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 protectingspend money on the protection of wild animals because humanswe 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 tothere is no compelling reason why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every square metreevery last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist alongsideside by side with wild animals, and coexistencethis should be our aim.
I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. Protecting natural habitats usually ensuresIt 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 environmental changesthe resulting changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we help maintainwe 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.
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.