Search
Vocabularying
Listening
Reading
1. Academic
2. General
Writing
1. IELTSWriting Checker
2. IELTS Writing Samples
Speaking
1. Latest Topics
2. Speaking Club

Do you want to improve your writing? Try our new evaluation service and get detailed feedback.

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?

Some people argue that it is pointless to spend money on the protection of wild animals because 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 why we should let animals die out. We do not need to exploit or destroy every last square metre of land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s population. There is plenty of room for us to exist side by side with wild animals, and this should be our aim. I also disagree with the idea that protecting animals is a waste of resources. It 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 changes to our planet would far outweigh the costs of conservation. By protecting wild animals and their habitats, we 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.

This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:a number of
Some
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :individualsnationsociety
people
 argue that it is pointless to spend money on

the protection of wild You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:due to the factin light of the fact thatowing to the fact that
because
 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 This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :exclusively
only
 for the benefit of humans, and there

is nothing special about this particular century that means

that we suddenly
 have the right to This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :authorize
allow
 or encourage the

extinction of any species. Furthermore
, there is no

compelling reason why we should This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :authorize
let
You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :pass away
die
 out. We

do not need to exploit or This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :demolishruin
destroy
 every last square Possible spelling mistake. ‘metre’ is British English.meter
metre
 of

land in order to feed or accommodate the world’s

population. There is This phrase/word is too simple and can be replaced with:abundance
plenty
 of room for us to exist side by

side with wild You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
, and this should be our aim.

I also
 disagree with the This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :thoughtconceptnotion
idea
 that protecting You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
 is a

waste of resources. It is usually
 the protection of natural

habitats that ensures the survival of wild You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
, and most

scientists This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :acquiesce
agree
 that these habitats are also
 crucial for

human survival. For example
, rainforests produce oxygen,

absorb carbon dioxide and Possible spelling mistake. ‘stabilise’ is British English.stabilize
stabilise
 the Earth’s climate. If we

This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :demolishedruined
destroyed
 these areas, the costs of managing the resulting

This phrase/word (depending on the context) can be potentially replaced with :altersadjusts
changes
 to our planet would far outweigh the costs of

conservation. By protecting wild You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
 and their habitats,

we maintain the natural balance of all life on Earth.

In conclusion
, we have no right to decide Consider shortening this phrase to just “whether”. It is correct though if you mean ‘regardless of whether’.whether
whether or not


wild You use this word too often, consider replacing it withpetbeastcreature
animals
 should exist, and I believe that we should do

everything we can to protect them. 