Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.
Check Your Text it's free

In many countries plastic shopping bags are the main source of rubbish causing pollution on land and in the water, so people think they should be banned. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.4

In many countries plastic shopping bags are the main source of rubbish causing pollution on land and in the water, so people think they should be banned. v. 4
The majority of people argue that especially wild animals have no place in the 21st century, although being the vital part of our planet. Under this circumstance they possess the belief spending money to preserve animals is total wastage for both budgets and resources and they have almost nothing to contribute to human progress. I totally disregard this point of view and strongly suggest that humanity must do everything to protect animal in all ways. The first thing to remember it is completely ludicrous and absurd the way of thinking that there is no place for living wild animals. Despite the fact that it is the 21st century and the world or technology is getting more and more developed, there are still areas on Earth that are inaccessible to humans and uninhabitable, which can be considered a paradise for animals. Therefore, if it is realizable to live with animals in such a vast world, killing them and causing the extinction of them is solely a matter of human stupidity and selfishness. Secondly, as I emphasized above, according to many people’s opinions, existing of wild animals is a waste of resources and the budget of government. However, living animals with people side by side and under the same planet have a countless amount of benefits instead of disadvantages. To preserve animals, people must not destroy plants, jungles, forest which all of these are the main attribute for to keep the balance of ecosystem. Furthermore, each year governments allocate a certain amount of money for drugs that are harmful to human life and health, such as cigarettes, alcohol beverages, tobaccos and so on. If these revenues were spent on protecting animals, we would achieve a more beneficial result and a healthier humanity. In conclusion, after having discussed the most pertinent points of the issues, I feel that the only logical conclusion is not only governments, but also people should do their best to save animals and must not allow the extinction of endangered animals.
The majority of
people
argue that
especially
wild
animals
have no place in the 21st century, although being the vital part of our planet. Under this circumstance they possess the belief spending money to preserve
animals
is total wastage for both budgets and
resources and
they have almost nothing to contribute to
human
progress. I
totally
disregard this point of view and
strongly
suggest that humanity
must
do everything to protect
animal
in
all ways
.

The
first
thing to remember it is completely ludicrous and absurd the way of thinking that there is no place for living wild
animals
. Despite the fact that it is the 21st century and the world or technology is getting more and more developed, there are
still
areas on Earth that are inaccessible to
humans
and uninhabitable, which can
be considered
a paradise for
animals
.
Therefore
, if it is realizable to
live
with
animals
in such a vast world, killing them and causing the extinction of them is
solely
a matter of
human
stupidity and selfishness.

Secondly
, as I emphasized above, according to
many
people’s
opinions, existing of wild
animals
is a waste of resources and the budget of
government
.
However
, living
animals
with
people
side by side and under the same planet have a countless amount of benefits
instead
of disadvantages. To preserve
animals
,
people
must
not
destroy
plants, jungles, forest which all of these are the main attribute for to
keep
the balance of ecosystem.
Furthermore
, each year
governments
allocate a certain amount of money for drugs that are harmful to
human
life and health, such as cigarettes, alcohol beverages, tobaccos and
so
on. If these revenues
were spent
on protecting
animals
, we would achieve a more beneficial result and a healthier humanity.

In conclusion
, after having discussed the most pertinent points of the issues, I feel that the
only
logical conclusion is not
only
governments
,
but
also
people
should do their best to save
animals
and
must
not
allow
the extinction of endangered
animals
.
7Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7Mistakes
He who knows no foreign languages know nothing of his own.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

IELTS essay In many countries plastic shopping bags are the main source of rubbish causing pollution on land and in the water, so people think they should be banned. v. 4

Essay
  American English
4 paragraphs
332 words
7
Overall Band Score
Coherence and Cohesion: 7.0
  • Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
  • ?
    One main idea per paragraph
  • Include an introduction and conclusion
  • Support main points with an explanation and then an example
  • Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
  • Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Lexical Resource: 7.0
  • Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
  • Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
  • Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Grammatical Range: 7.0
  • Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
  • Check your writing for errors
Task Achievement: 7.0
  • Answer all parts of the question
  • ?
    Present relevant ideas
  • Fully explain these ideas
  • Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
Labels Descriptions
  • ?
    Currently is not available
  • Meet the criteria
  • Doesn't meet the criteria
Similar posts