+0

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?

These days, some people advocate that a large amount of time and budget is allocated for wild breeds’ maintenance and that this fund, in a more superior way, should be expended on the human race. From my vantage point, I utterly appreciate the expense of advancing human life rather than protecting wild animals.

Obviously, wild creatures endow us with a plethora of consumables and organic materials that possess high nutritional and educational values, hence, investing in preserving wild beings will lay the basis for boosting several aspects hereafter. Nonetheless, this investment also remains shortcomings as wild animal conservation areas require an extremely colossal expenditure on running-cost and may even bring counterproductivity. These sanctuaries, unwittingly, sometimes do not resemble the natural environment to facilitate animals’ adaptation, and this leads them to bear no descendant blocking the probabilities for natural reproduction. Another adversity is that conserving wild creatures can neither minimize the loss of habitats nor preclude illegal over-poaching. Should we protect wildlife while unrestricted hunting takes place on a daily basis, the ecosystem will still become perished, and this, somewhat, renders our endeavours pointless.

Conversely, it stands to reason that the government should offer proper subsidization for advancing people’s living standards. The majority of people emphasize that upgrading the educational foundation is an underlying prerequisite benefiting both humanity and wildlife. Once people’s cognitive competence has been advanced, the over-hunting ratio will decline subsequently. Besides, there is a common endorsement that one of the ways to better community is to develop natural-based medicine as wild animals containing rare genes are of the crucial substances for pharmaceutical inventions. This outlook, however, fails to consider that medicinal animals will rapidly be on the verge of extinction if we keep exploiting them without any protective resolutions. Unfortunately, maintaining biodiversity and improving people’s quality of life concurrently is deemed to be futile, thus giving prominence to social welfare still makes a priority due to its overwhelming strengths.


In summary, I believe that substituting budgetary distribution to animal protection for humanity demands is a sustainable guarantee of mankind’s survival. Once social welfare is flourished, the ecosystem will also be recovered simultaneously.

+0

Please post essays, paragraphs, dialogues and other writing in the essay forum so a moderator does not have to move your post.
https://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm


Didn't you see my feedback on your previous essay?

https://www.englishforums.com/English/IeltsWriting2/bpjwpn/post.htm

You use a lot of words and expressions that are not appropriate for the context. You need to express yourself with clear, simple concrete ideas rather than sophisticated language that is difficult to understand.

You have repeated that same pattern in this essay. Do not use words that you do not know really well. Otherwise, the writing is very strange, unnatural and awkward.

+0

You wrote nearly 360 words. The minimum is 250. You will get a poor score because the more words you write, the more opportunities you have for errors, and each error counts against you.

The highlighted words are not good English. The words are in the dictionary, but they are not used in a natural way. You are trying very hard to sound sophisticated, but it is not the way to a successful essay.



These days, some people advocate (wrong word) that a large amount of time and budget is allocated for wild breeds(wrong word) maintenance (wrong word) and that this fund, in a more superior way, (Unnatural) should be expended on the human race. (wrong expression) From my vantage point, I utterly appreciate the expense of advancing human life (wrong expression) rather than protecting wild animals.

Obviously, wild creatures endow us with a plethora of consumables and organic materials that possess high nutritional and educational values, hence, investing in preserving wild beings will lay the basis for boosting several aspects hereafter. Nonetheless, this investment also remains shortcomings as wild animal conservation areas require an extremely colossal expenditure on running-cost and may even bring counterproductivity. These sanctuaries, unwittingly, sometimes do not resemble the natural environment to facilitate animals’ adaptation, and this leads them to bear no descendant blocking the probabilities for natural reproduction. Another adversity is that conserving wild creatures can neither minimize the loss of habitats nor preclude illegal over-poaching. Should we protect wildlife while unrestricted hunting takes place on a daily basis, the ecosystem will still become perished, and this, somewhat, renders our endeavours pointless.

.