Some people think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Sample Response
There is some debates over whether money that is spent on wildlife protection could be better spent on helping people. Personally, I believe that the protection of wild animals is extremely important and that countries need to invest more money in preserving their native animal species.
Firstly, I do not believe that much time or money is actually spent on protecting wild animals. In addition, I believe that a large majority of time that people spend on such issues is voluntary work that people do because they are passionate about saving and helping animals. Additionally, a large amount of money that is spent on these causes is from charity organisations which rely mostly on donations. Therefore, we cannot tell people what charities that they should or should not donate their time and money towards.
Secondly, while many people believe that humans are the superior race on planet Earth, others, including myself, feel that all living beings, human and animal, have equal rights to live in peace, and therefore the protection of all animals and their habitats is extremely important. Human activity is no doubt the main cause of most problems wild animals face. The human race has continued to destroy the planet and the natural habitats of wild animals and therefore should be responsible for protecting them so that they can live wild and free, as is their natural state.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that it is essential for the health of the planet to maintain a diverse range of animals and wildlife within all eco-systems. I also believe that due to the widespread devastation humans have caused to the natural environment, it is our responsibility to do whatever necessary, regardless of time and money, in order to restore a healthy balance to the planet’s natural environments.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Fix agreement Original: is Suggested revision: are Why it matters: The plural noun ‘debates’ requires the plural verb ‘are’.
- 2. Use correct source phrase Original: money that is spent on these causes is from Suggested revision: money spent on these causes comes from Why it matters: Funds ‘come from’ a source, so the original construction is ungrammatical.
- 3. Improve noun phrase Original: charity organisations which rely mostly on donations Suggested revision: charitable organisations that rely mostly on donations Why it matters: ‘Charitable organisations’ is a more natural phrase for organisations funded by donations.
- 4. Remove extra relative word Original: what charities that they should Suggested revision: which charities they should Why it matters: The embedded question needs ‘which charities’ without the additional ‘that’.
- 5. Fix verb pattern Original: donate their time and money towards Suggested revision: give their time and money to Why it matters: People donate money to a charity, while ‘give time and money to’ works naturally for both objects.
- 6. Use accurate category Original: race Suggested revision: species Why it matters: Humans are a species, so ‘species’ is the accurate biological category in this comparison.
- 7. Use parallel plurals Original: human and animal Suggested revision: humans and animals Why it matters: Plural nouns are needed to match the preceding reference to all living beings.
- 8. Add linking verb Original: do whatever necessary Suggested revision: do whatever is necessary Why it matters: The clause requires ‘is’ between the pronoun and adjective.
- 9. Reduce relative clause Original: whether money that is spent on wildlife protection Suggested revision: whether money spent on wildlife protection Why it matters: The reduced participle clause is more concise while preserving the meaning.
- 10. Vary the transition Original: Additionally Suggested revision: Moreover Why it matters: This avoids repeating the same additive transition used in the preceding sentence.
- 11. Remove redundancy Original: planet Earth Suggested revision: Earth Why it matters: ‘Earth’ already names the planet, so ‘planet’ is unnecessary here.
- 12. Use concise emphasis Original: no doubt the main cause Suggested revision: undoubtedly the main cause Why it matters: The adverb expresses the same certainty more concisely.
Suggested Rewrites
- is are
- money that is spent on these causes is from money spent on these causes comes from
- charity organisations which rely mostly on donations charitable organisations that rely mostly on donations
- what charities that they should which charities they should
- donate their time and money towards give their time and money to
- race species
Why this response received Band 7.5
The response takes an unequivocal position and develops a persuasive, well-organised case through arguments about voluntary funding, animal rights, and human responsibility for environmental harm. Its main limitation is occasional imprecision and repetition, alongside a few conspicuous grammatical slips. The highest-priority improvement is to refine sentence-level accuracy and make the comparison with spending on human needs more explicit while preserving the strong line of argument.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
The response fully addresses the opinion question with a clear position and relevant, well-developed reasons that challenge the premise and justify protection.
Make the resource comparison even more explicit by briefly explaining why human needs do not justify reducing wildlife protection.
Coherence and Cohesion
The argument progresses clearly through focused paragraphs, though repeated stance markers and additive links are slightly noticeable.
Vary the way supporting points are introduced and tighten repeated expressions of personal belief.
Lexical Resource
A flexible and generally precise vocabulary supports the ethical and environmental argument, with only occasional awkward or less exact choices.
Choose more precise terms for human dominance and ecological systems, and avoid unnecessary repetition of “protection” and “believe.”
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of structures is used with good control, while a small number of agreement and clause-construction errors remain conspicuous.
Correct isolated forms such as “There is some debates,” “what charities that,” and “whatever necessary” through a final grammar check.
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 think that a huge amount of time and money is spent on the protection of wild animals, and that this money could be better spent on the human population. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.