Should all wild animals or some of the them be protected?

Question

Please check my essay anc correct. Many thanks in advance and happy new year 2019.

Some people believe that all wild animals should be protected while others think
that only some of them need to be protected. Discuss both views and give your own
opinion.
In the the modern era, protecting wild animals has been a highly controversial
issue. There are those who ardently advocate that all wild animals must be
protected, however others vehemently believe that only several wild animals
need protection. This essay will examine both sides of the sound argument and
provide overall opinion.
From an overall perspective, there are two primary reasons why people
wholeheartedly believe that all wild animals should be protected. Perhaps the cogent
reason in favour of this conviction is that every wild animal contributes to a balanced
ecosystems. A good illustration of this is that if all tigers were eradicated,
several animals in food chain would suffer. A futher point in favour of this idea is
that researchers can study wild animals molecules structures and analyse
research results for human well-being. For example, some proteins from monkeys
can be used and be developed for medical treatments.
Despite these logically compelling arguments, there is also a whole case for the
idea that governments should only protect several wild animals. The sound
reason in favour of this notion is that it is prohibitevly expensive to safeguard all
wild animals. This is because there are other important sectors, for example,
health and education, that governments have to support. Furthermore, some
wild animals are incredibly dangerous for humans. For example, tigers can kill
and eat humans.
In conclusion, protecting wild animals is a topic which is obviously relevant to
modern society. Having considered both sides of the issue, I would say that all
wild animal should be protected, with the dangerous ones being protected at
certain number.

Thanks and hapoy new year 2019

Poster · Accepted Answer

The third sentence is superfluous: that is what the question asks for, and what the reader expects anyway, and it in no way advances your argument. The marking scheme requires you to "present a clear position throughout the response", so you need to state your own opinion in the introduction. Also leave an entire blank line between paragraphs so that the paragraphing is absolutely clear to the examiner. You must present a clear central topic within each paragraph to achieve Band 7 Coherence and Cohesion (one quarter of the marks).

From an overall perspective, there are two primary reasons why [some] people
wholeheartedly believe that all wild animals should be protected. Perhaps the cogent
reason in favour of this conviction is that every wild animal contributes to a balanced
ecosystems. ['a' means 'one', so the noun following it must be singular.] A good illustration of this is that if all tigers were eradicated,
several animals in food chain ['chain' is a singular countable noun and requires an article or determiner] would suffer. A futher point in favour of this idea is
that researchers can study wild animals molecules structures [the molecular structure of wild animals] and analyse
research results for human well-being. For example, some proteins from monkeys
can be used and be developed for medical treatments.

Despite these logically compelling arguments, there is also a whole case [unnecessary] for the
idea that governments should only protect several [certain specific/ some particular species] wild animals. The sound
reason in favour of this notion is that it is prohibitevly expensive to safeguard all
wild animals. This is because there are other important sectors, for example,
health and education, that governments have to support. Furthermore, some
wild animals are incredibly dangerous for humans. For example, tigers can kill
and eat humans. [Our species has been living with tigers for thousands of years: yet we thrive today.]
In conclusion, protecting wild animals is a topic which is obviously [Not obvious to many people: some people are more concerned with religion and their own survival.] relevant to
modern society. Having considered both sides of the issue, I would say that all
wild animal should be protected, with the dangerous ones being protected at
certain number.

You are using a series of fixed phrases in your essays, such as 'Despite these logically compelling arguments', 'Having considered both sides of the issue,'. Examiners are not looking for masterful connecting phrases: on the contrary Band 9 for Coherence and Cohesion specifies: 'uses cohesion in such a way that it
attracts no attention'. You need to focus more on 'presenting a well-developed response to the question with
relevant, extended and supported ideas' (Band 8). There is too little content in your essay, and too much filler. As far as vocabulary is concerned it is surprising that words such as 'species', 'conservation', 'wildlife', 'extinction' and so on did not come up. Topic vocabulary is the key to good score here. It seems to me that you have the ability to obtain a good overall score, insofar as there are relatively few grammar issues, but you need to redirect the content, and present a much stronger argument and rationale to support your views.

There are model answers here:

https://ielts-simon.com/ielts-help-and-english-pr/2015/01/ielts-writing-task-2-wild-animals-essay.html

https://www.ielts-mentor.com/writing-sample/writing-task-2/2422-wild-animals-should-be-protected

Note the range of topic vocabulary within them, and the comparative lack of ostentatious cohesive devices.

Should all wild animals or some of the them be protected?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions